[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Maine's Uoastal Program SECTION C ANNUAL REPORT NOVEMBER 1989 Eastport Bangor*, IvIcaunias Augustaj@q Bar Harbor @Ckland Portland Kittery HT 393 .M2 N-135 1989 itive Department Maine State Planning Office A@ MAINE'S COASTAL PROGRAM/ oto Section C Annual Report November 1989 (Zt- FCD Submitted to The National oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Office of ocean & Coastal Resource Management Washington, D.C. 20235 Maine State Planning office Augusta, Maine 04333 State House Station No. 38 Tel. (207) 289-3261 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Estuarine Habitats B. Coastal Pollution 6 C. Ocean Dumping 28 D. Coastal Hazards (erosion, flooding & sea level rise) 30 E. Ocean and Coastal Use Management 39 F. Public Access 44 G. Urban Waterfronts and Ports 47 H. Permit Simplification 52 seccrpt.69 Maine's Coastal Program SECTION C ANNUAL REPORT A. Estuarine Habitats 1. What are your State's major coastal wetlands protection problems or issues (institutional, man-made or natural) and how are you addressing them? Problems or Issues 1. Illegal fill/dredging 2. Violation of permit conditions 3. Loss of habitat through erosion, storm, water level rise; reduced fresh water inflow or salt water infusion; sedimentation; or toxic pollution 4. Inadequate monitoring and enforcement 5. Inadequate regulation or laws 6. Limited geographic jurisdiction 7. Limited coordination 8. Lack of political will, public education, etc. In your response to the above, please specify differences regarding: 1. Intertidal wetlands 2. Submerged aquatic vegetation 3. Nonvegetated shallow water areas, including salt ponds and lagoons; and 4. Freshwater or non-tidal wetlands in the coastal zone Maine's major wetlands problem over the past several years has been a serious shortage of Dept. of, Environmental Protection staff to adequately review, monitor, inspect and enforce its environmental protection laws. A significant backlog of permit applications accumulated as a result and, in some instances, work was done without State permits. The staff shortage would have been more serious except for the funding of several DEP staff positions by Maine's Coastal Program. In FY 88 and 89 the Legislature increased the DEP budget and additional personnel have been hired. The quality of reviews and DEP monitoring and enforcement efforts already have improved, and the number of site inspections has increased. A consultant recently reviewed about 10% of coastal wetlands cases and all cases involving large areas of wetland fill. He found the DEP/BEP approach to be consistent and rigorous. The most commonly denied activity was requests for filling; among wetland types, mrshes were less likely to be affecteq by proposed alterations than rocky shorelines or flats; and very few substantial coastal wet],and fills have been approved. only six cases in the 20 years since enactment of the Coastal Wetlands law 1 involved filling greater than one acre, and four of these were for highway improvements or public port facilities. Mitigation was generally required where substantial fills were allowed. Finally, persons who violated the law by illegally filling coastal wetlands were subject to stiff penalties. Actual wetland losses have not been well-documented, though it has been estimated that historically 1 to 2 percent of Maine's original vegetated wetland acreage has been lost or converted to other uses. The State's most authoritative analysis of wetlands problems and issues is contained in Maine Wetlands Conservation Priority Plan, prepared jointly by the SPO, Bureau of Parks and Recreation, and the Wetlands Subcommittee of the Land and Water Resources Council. The report's "Executive Summary" is reproduced below. It concludes that wetland losses are greatest for smaller wetlands in rapidly developing areas of the state, e.g. southern York County, south coastal areas and other high- growth urban centers. Coastal salt marshes are experiencing the greatest threats from fringing development, whereas inland wetlands, especially smaller ones, are being filled. UnfQrtunately, no single comprehensive wetland mapping* system or database exists. Existing wetland inventories give only a partial indication of the extent and type of wetlands in Maine. They are based on different wetland definitions and classifications, size criteria for inclusion and inventory methodologies. Consequently wetland losses and trends are extremely difficult to monitor. Maine currently is exploring the idea of developing a single comprehensive wetland mapping system that would be compatible with other State GIS efforts. Cognizant of the threat of wetland loss, Maine has been tightening its environmental laws to enhance wetland protection. New coastal sand dune rules were adopted by the DEP. The rules incorporate a new series of computerized geology and coastal hazard maps developed by the Maine Geological Survey (with Coastal Program funding) for 27 beach and sand dune environments along 30 miles of the southern Maine coast. The maps are referenced as best available information in acting on permit applications. In 1985 a Freshwater Wetlands Law was passed, protecting all freshwater wetlands larger than 10 acres. (Coastal salt-water wetlands were already protected, regardless of size.) The Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act was amended to extend the shoreland zone to include coastal and freshwater wetlands. The DEP prepared a model ordinance for this purpose and some towns, especially those under extreme development pressure, have adopted standards which are even more restrictive. (Kennebunk, for example, excludes wetland areas in calculating lot sizes in subdivision developments.) In 1988 the Legislature consolidated several environmental laws affecting wetlandsunder a single Natural Resources Protection Law. Resources protected include: coastal wetlands 2 and sand dune systems; freshwater wetlands of 10 acres or more; great ponds of 10 acres or more (including associated wetlands; rivers, streams and brooks and associated wetlands; and significant wildlife habitat. Activities within 100 feet of a waterbody are regulated since they have the potential for indirectly affecting the waterbody. Additionally, the Shoreland Zoning law regulates activities within 250 feet of a waterbody or wetland, and it is the policy of the Maine Bureau of Public Lands to recognize: wetland values in leasing decisions regarding State-owned submerged lands. Finally, the State is considering the recommendations made in the Maine Wetlands Conservation PrioritV Plan reproduced below. 2. To the best of your ability, please fill out the wetlands chart attached. Data on wetlands lost and gained are not available, as indicated above. The Maine Wetlands Conservation Priority Plan, with reference to the state as a whole, attributes historic wetland losses to commercial, residential and urban development; transportation and roads; floodplain development; dredging and dredged material disposal; hydropower development/water storage; peat mining, timber harvesting and agriculture; pollution (e.g. from coastal overboard discharges) and-natural causes. The chart below shows estimated statewide losses of vegetated wetlands since European settlement. 3. How is your State/program required to factor cumulative impacts into estuarine habitat/wetland project review decisions? Maine's environmental laws do not provide review standards for cumulative impacts. The State follows a general policy of no net loss of wetlands, however, and the Natural Resources Protection Act, which is its primary tool for wetland protection, specifies (among other standards) that activities will be permitted in wetlands only if they "will not unreasonably harm any significant wildlife habitat, freshwater wetland plant habitat, aquatic habitat, travel corridor, freshwater, estuarine or marine fisheries or other aquatic life." Unfortunately, freshwater wetlands under 10 acres are not regulated under the NRPA, but they can be zoned as Natural Resource Protection Areas and regulated by municipalities under the State's Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law. Cumulative impact is a problem only in the absence of regulation based on sound land use plans. The problem is being addressed over the longer term under Maine's Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Act. One of the state goals established under the Act, which applies to "planning and regulatory actions of all state and municipal agencies," is: to protec-@ "critical natural resources, incl4ding without limitation, wetlands, . wildlife and fisheries habitat, sand dunes, shorelands, scenic 3 vistas and unique natural areas." The Act specifically requires municipalities to develop comprehensive plans and implementation strategies with timetables reflecting this and the other goals. 4. What problems have you had with implementing a cumulative impact review policy or process? How are you attempting to address them? If you do not have such a policy/process, is one being considered? See question 3. 5. Does your State have a state-wide habitat/wetlands mitigation policy, or do any individual state agencies employ any mitigation policies or internal guidelines? If so, describe the policy framework used to mitigate impacts to wetlands. Please attach a copy of the policy framework. Maine does not have a specific state-wide wetland mitigation policy per se, though the DEP currently is in process of developing one. The Natural Resources Protection Act lays the foundation for such a policy by specifying that proposed mitigation may be considered in determining whether there is unreasonable harm to significant wildlife habitat, "if that mitigation does not diminish in the vicinity of the proposed activity the overall value of significant wildlife habitat and species utilization of the habitat and if there is no specific biological or physical feature unique to the habitat that would be adversely affected by the proposed activity." The DEP uses mitigation in its review of permit applications affecting wetlands. When compensatory activities for the development of a wetland for other purposes are recommended, it is usually the extent of wetland loss that is mitigated. The Maine Dept. of Transportation (MDOT) also has a mitigation program in compliance with Federal Highway Administration policy. FHA policy requires federally funded projects to consider ways to avoid or minimize wetland losses and, after all practicable measures have been taken, to give first consideration for compensation to mitigation within the highway right-of-way. In cases where mitigation outside the right-of-way is necessary, Federal funds may be used to improve existing publicly owned wetlands or to purchase replacement wetlands. MDOT reports that opportunities to mitigate losses of wetland functions and values within highway rights-of-fway are limited and creation of wetlands off-site can be expensive and of doubtful public benefit. 6. When "compensatory mitigation" is required or allowed for unavoidable wetland alterations,* what methods can be used (i.e. creation, restoration, mitigation banking) and where is it required (or allowed), i.e. on-site, in a similarly fpnctioning ecosystem, within same watershed, anywhere in coastal zone? See question 5. 4 7. How is compensatory mitigation measured or mitigation banking credited? Is mitigation measured by area using replacement ratios or is it measured functionally by the functional equivalence of the lost wetland? If it is measured functionally, how is functional equivalency assessed? Which system is employed, e.g., HEP PennHep, FHWA/Adamus Method, WET II? See question 5. 8. How does your state assess the quality of compensatory- mitigation? Does the state require monitoring and research,;oh.'. mitigation projects? If so, what is the basis for a successful/unsuccessful determination? See question 5. 9. How are mitigation conditions that are placed on permits coordinated with other Federal or State resource agencies? The DEP routinely circulates permit applications under the Natural Resources Protection Act and the Site Location of Development Act for review and comment by other concerned State agencies, such as the Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, Dept.. of Marine Resources, Bureau of Public Lands and the Maine Geological Survey. Coordination with federal agencies is accomplished as necessary on a case-by-case basis. 5 owl Mm M MAINE WETLANDS CONSERVATION PRIORITY PLAN Executive Summary Maine is 25% welland. More than 5,000,000 acres of freshwater wetlands and approximately Inconsistency between state and federal wetland laws, in terms of differing definitions, size of 160,000 acres of tidal wetlands are currently estimated to occur in Maine. The diversity of climatic wetland regulated and exemptions. has complicated matters for developers and regulators alike. and physiographic conditions in Maine accounts for the diversity of wetland types and their extent Within Maine, different agencies of state government have different mandates. (e.g. DEP regulates in Maine. Forested and shrub swamps are most abundant, while tidal marshes and beach systems are activities in wetlands to preserve their functions and MDOT is required to build safe roads for the least abundant. Each have important natural values End the latter are crucial for the survival of public, which may include filling wetlands). Nationally, there are similar conflicting mandates, but many species of migratory birds. Other wetlpnd types in Maine include mudflats and rocky shores, these are being merged into a more unified policy in favor of stronger wetland protection. freshwater marshes, bogs and fens, floodplain wetlands and other seasonally flooded flats or basins with welland vegetation and/or soils, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition of Enforcement and implementation of regulatory we!land protection programs varies at all levels welland. - federal, state and local - and are generally outpaced by the current rate of welland alterations. Many wetland alterations are'inadequately regulated, especially developments on smaller wetlands Wetlands have many natural and cultural values and provide many important functions such as and the cumulative impacts on specific wetlands or wetland complexes. Regulation is ineffective in fish, wild5fe and endangered species habitat; flood control, nutrient retention and sediment Evaluating how seriously or permanently an alteration impairs wetland functions. It is unknown to trapping; production of timber and other natural resources: and recreation, education and research, what extent certain wefland functions are being lost by what degree of alteration. and use as natural areas. The "critical edge" or wetiand-upland transition zone is extremely important for wildlife, providing a buffer protecting the wetland from indirect or secondary Many losses of wetland function and value are attributed to activities in upland areas impacts, such as pollution. immediately adjacent to wetlands, (e.g. housing and industrial development, landfills). Most regulatory programs deal with the wetland itself and not specific activities on adjacent lands that 'Existing wetland inventories give only a partial indication of the extent and type of wetlands could adversely affect the wetland indirectly. Regulation may not stop development from occurring in Maine. Inventories have used different wetland dcf;nitions and classifications, size criteria for near wetlands; however, non-regulatory initiatives (designation, registry, easements, etc.) may inclusion and inventory methodologies. Though a number of wetland inventories exist in Maine, provide important opportunities to address problems created by adjacent and upland developments there is a critical tack of a Single comprehensive wetland mapping system that could be used for that affect wetlands. regulatory, planning and management purposes. The absence of a complete mapping or inventory system not only precludes the determination of current extent and location of wetlands, it makes Acquisition is often the only means to ensure the long-term protection of certain high-value welland losses and other trends impossible to monitor. wetlands and their component species. Permanent protection is also required for buffer areas around these high priority wetlands, to avert the potential for secondary impacts upon protected wetlands. Historically, 1-2% of Maine's original vegetated wetland acreage has been lost or converted to Although the state and private entities have already protected some important wetlands, there are other uses. There has also been a net clain in open water wetland areas, although extent of this is Still 2cquisition needs which have not been met. There is agreement within the conservation not well recorded. Some restoration and mitigation projects have resulted in the creation of some community, wildlife biologists and natural area managers, that wetland acquisition is a high priority vegetated coastal and inland wetland areas, but their replacement value for wildlife or other for Maine. The potential for wetlands as educational resources has scarcely been developed in the functions is not well known. state, and may be contributing to any lark of understanding of the biological and cultural When wetlands are altered or destroyed for various kinds of development, maintenance and importance of these ecosystems. operating costs are generally higher than wisely developed upland sites. There are more RECOMMENDATIONS environmental and socioeconomic costs associated with wetland alterations that must be considered, since these costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. I Consistent with federal definitions, a definition of what constitutes a wetland needs to be Alterations which result in outright wetland loss include filling, dredging and draining. Losses adopted by the state with the intent of enhancing regulation of all wetlands, particularly of welland function and value are far more difficult to measure, but are just as serious and in fact those of smaller size (less than 10 acres). more widespread. Important here is the loss of riparian or buffer areas adjacent to wetlands which are crucial for preserving the integrity of wetland functions and values. The conversion of land 2. A single comprehensive wetland mapping system is needed for the state that will incorporate use around a wetland can also alter or destroy the natural values or integr;!y of a we!!and. ecological wetland units of all sizes, including critical resources, such as fish and wildlife habitat and endangered and threatened species and their habitats. A computerized mapping The filling of wetlands has occurred throughout Maine's history of settlement as these system should have the ability to track extent and types of wetland losses, as well as .wastelands" were "improved" for residential and ccrnmercial dEVelopment. Agricultural activities locations of development activities in or around wetlands. have converted vegetation types and when located in or near floodplains may have reduced some natural flood tontrol features. Other wetland values have been lost or reduced, even thought the 3. Maps created by the system should be at a scale useful to towns and regulatory agencies for area may still be classified as wetland. Dam construction has created open water habitats while planning and should be GIS-compatible, as has been done by the National W6tland Inventory. often flooding vegetated wetland types. A GIS-based wetland mapping system should provide the basis for trend studies to determine accurately the rates of loss or conversion and to identify regions of critical concern. Currently, welland losses are greatest in Smaller wetlands in rapidly developing areas of the state, e.g. southern York County, south coastal areas and other high-growth urban centers. Coastal 4. In addition to acres of wetland altered or converted, losses of wetland function and value salt marshes are experiencing the greatest threats from fringing development, whereas inland need to be assessed as well. W@llanclt, especially smaller ones, are being filled. While the values of individual small wetlands may 5. Particular attention should be paid t monitoring, regulation and control of n ot be great. they are extremely important within a larger landscape context. The cumulative loss activities in buffer zones around we=0j`E-*.7Pn critical edge" habitats, of many small wetlands via development activities may be just as severe as the loss of a smaller number of jarge wetlands when habitat and cultural values are considered. 6. Enforcement of state and federal wetland laws needs to be improved. Greater information dissemination to the development community should occur through the regulatory structure. 7. A clear and consistent mitigation policy and guidelines needs to be developed and implemented by the state. Causes and Amounts of Welland Loss Many of the increased development pressures on wetlands relate directly to population growth. Increasing urbanization. residential and commercial development. increased roadways and use of wetland resources all result in direct and indirect adverse impacts on wetlands. The following factors and activities have been identified as contributors to historic wetland loss. The net effect of these activities on wetland loss is illustrated in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1 Estimated loss of vegetated wetlands in Maine since European settlement. Estimated Loss Of Vegetated Wetlands Since European Settlement (Estimated losses represent 2% of total resource) 40000 35000 30000 A c 25000 r 20000 a 1500 10000 5000 0 Commercial Transportation Hydropower Peat Agriculture and Residential and Roads and Water Harvesting Development Storage Causes of Welland At teratlon 77, @3 Sunkhaze Meadows and Stream, east of Bangor. Wellands like these cover at least 25 percent of Maine, perhaps more. Wetlands and Wi d animals W-fiting rules to protect them can be difficult --- --- - - lands. endangered species, sand dunes, streams, and inland wetlands, and so forth - all permitted under By DAVIL) D. PLxrr great ponds. . different statutes with different standards," Silkman Photography by Christopher Ayres Once die wetlands rules are done and die eagle maps recalls. -there was confusion." adopted, there will be other projects, says Environ- 'I"here were holes in the laws as well - before the mental Protection Commissioner Dean Marriott map- new Act, Maine's basic environmental statutes didn't RANVING UP RU1,ES to protect natural ping and data-Rathering, updating old rules that protect protect high mountain areas or the habitats of endan- resources is a sure-fire moneymaker for die shores of streams and great ponds. writing new gered wildlife, for example - and some standards were lawyers and consultants, because it gets rules to protect high mountain areas and manage "criti- weak. "We leveled them up to the most stringent stan- so complicated. cal wildlife habitat" such as deer wintering areas. dard," Silkman maintains. A roomful of people representing Complex as the arguments over the rules sometimes Overall, the idea was to create a surer world for contractors, environmental groups. get, the idea behind the Natural Resource Protection applicants and for the agencies (particularly the Depart- state agencies, and landowners showed up for a recent Act was to simplify the state's pertnitting process, says ment of Environmental Protection and the land Use workshop on rules to protect wetlands, for example - State Planning Director Richard Silknian. "We had a Regulation Commission) that review applications and each expressing concerns from different points ofview, number of natural resources - coastal sand dunes, grant permits. In addition, says Maine Audubon attor- many suggesting modifications to ease the burden on a ney Karin Tilberg, the Act "brings together the re- particular constituency. sources that interconnect naturally," making it possible Earlier this fall, heai-ings on a different set of rul 's for regulators to consider a number of different impacts o ( ctually maps) that would steer development away W at the same time before giving someone a license to a BEFORE THEne clear, build on, fill in, or otherwise after a natural area. from nesting bald eagles drew considerable public c inment. Future rule-making and mapping of fragile Act, Maine's basic environ- Rules set boundaries, which is why rule-making nvironmenLs and wildlife habitats can be expected to often gets contentious.Mis fall's rule writing effort for o attract attention too, as the state moves to protect the mental statues didn ?protect. wetlands, produced three different drafts - one from a public's interests in a variety of natural resources. busincss group, one from an environmental group, a 'fhe eagle maps and the wetlands rules were this high mountain areas or the tliitd from the Dtipartnient of Environmental Protec- tion year's major moves to implement Maine's two-year-old habitats ofendangered wildlife, 'llic Maine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Natural Resource Protection Act. Passed during the favored classifying wetlands by "function" instead of same legislative session that produced the state's land- for example - and some listing all the different plants in them; the Natural Re- mark growth-managenient law, the Act combines cle- ments of laws protecting coastal and freshwater wet- standards were weak. sources Council wanted "alternatives",exai nined before 24 SECTION I - MAINE TIMES NOVEMBER 24, 1989 allowing someone to fill high-value wetlands; the DEP comfortable encouragingpublic agencies notto toe the Alice Knapp, a lawyer for the Maine Chamber of stressed "no net impact."There were differences over line,"cleclared MargaretRoy, a memberofthe Boardof Commerce and Industry, agrees that the definition of "compensation* (replacing a destroyed or degraded Environmental Protection, which must ultimately ap- "unreasonable harm" is critical. but worries that the dand) and "mitigation" (avoiding or reducing the prove the rules. -Ibe DOT is different" countered Bill new rules may go too far. -[be rules are supposed to impact of a project) and when each of these strategies Reid of the departinenfs Location and Environment defirre it," she says, 'but we seem to be getting into the might be appropriate. Division, asserting that all of 1988's DOT projects had DEPs interpretation instead." We Precedents were on everyone's mind:"my concern is affected only 17 acres of wetlands. Adding to Knapp's concern is a proposal from the that this rulemaking not be a vehicle to emblazon A major task facing the rule-drafters is defining what Natural Resources Council that applicants for some 'compensation' on our envirortmerital laws,' cont, constitutes 'unreascrtiable harm" where natUraI rl wetlands permits be required to show there is 'no mented one environmental attorney. sources are involved - be they wetlands. wildlife, frag- practicable alternative that would not involve a wet- Consistency was another concern. The DEP's draft He mountain areas, or bodies of water. "Whaes'unrea- land,*Ibe DEP, says Knapp, "reads alternatives into exempted public safety projects affecting less than sonable' harm to each category of Welland?" wonders the 'unreasonable' standard, but ithas no statutory au- 20,000 square feet of wetlands," an exemption some Maine Audubon's Tilberg. 'With coastal wetlands it thority to do so." Allowing regulators to consider alter- characterize as a loophole created especially for the may be 'unreasonable' to lose any more. But in lower- natives, Knapp says, would pave die way for "obstruc- state Department of Transportation (DOT). "I'm un- value wetlands it may be OK to lose something." rest." In some cases, that will mean re-writing existing "Economics is a real problem in the environmental rul" (for stream alteration and great ponds) to b . 9 arena," Knapp admits. 'Environmental protection is Jul them up to date and make them uniform; in other cases incredibly expensive." But she wouldn't like to see it means writing new rules (for high mountain areas). In things "frozen" until the habitat maps are done, be- tionist tactics' by opponents of projects. "It's a real, most situations it will mean collecting voluminous cause "that's not good public policy." practical concern." she maintains. The Natural Re- amounts of data. State Planning Director Richard Silkman regards sources Counzil, the Maine Audubon Society, and other Because of the expense, information-gathering can information-gathering and mapping as important. environmental organizations have pressed for consid- become as much ofa problem as definifion-writing.'Ibe "When we expanded the scope of die law, we didn't eration ofalternatives in a number ofcontexts over the Natural Resource Protection Act and the state Endan- know where all the resources were." he says, *so we years, most notably in hydroelectric licensing cases. gered Species law require the Department of Inland saidthe law wouldn'tbe implemented untilthey'd been (Yet to be addressed is an inconsistency in state law- Fisheries and Wildlife aF&W) to map habitat for en- mapped by lr&W." Whether the McK=ah admini- ne DEPs draft wetlands rules contain references to dangered species, for example. The now-completed stration will support added appropfiatiofts@ or tpapping forested wetlands, but the regulations administered by eagle maps came first; habitat for other endangered remains to be seen, but everyone expects budgets to be the Land Use Regulation Commission in Maine's unor- creatures is to follow. tight next year. I . ganized townships don't.'Ibe Legislature intended for All parties say they want as much information on "Wildlife habitat," says Natural Resources C6uncil the Natural Resource Protection Act to apply statewide, resources as possible. But the mapping requirements attorney Beth Nagusky when asked where the state suggesting that someone will have to reconcile these of the Natural Resource Protection Act may prove to be should turn its attention after wetlands, "Up to now two sets of the rules.) a stumbling block to full protection, because tight budg- there's been no recognition of cumulative loss." Pro- The discussion over the wetlands rules illustrates ets mean it will take years to finish the maps. Old tecting wildlife habitats could be just as tough as wet- how difficult it is to come up with regulations everyone regulations covering fresh water wetlands and sand lands: they're diverse, spread all over the place. subject can live with. In the coming weeks, the DEPwill attempt dunes mention wildlife habitat but don't require expen. to just as many differences of opinion, and have just as to reconcile the various points of view so it can hold a sive maps. Says Maine Audubon'sTilberg. 'It's nice if it much potential for obstructing development. "Wildlife formal public hearing on the wetlands rules, which will can happen. but unless it does it's a step backward." habitat will be harder to get your hands on than wet- be up for adoption early next year. Alice Knapp, the Chamber of Commerce and Indus. lands were," she predicts. "We started with wetlands because they're the most try attorney, wants to see the maps completed and When you set out to simplify things, that's what critical now," says Environmental Protection Commis- thinks the public ought to be willing to pay for them. happens. sioner Marriott. "Next we'll step back and do all the BEP hears concerns about proposed wetland rules AUGUSTA (GGS) - stiff new regula- ",vater dependent uses," or for highway lion. worried the rules could be roads that would impact on wetlands. lions designed to protect Maine's 5 construction required in the interests of interpreted to ban new bridge "if the Legislature had wanted ih@ million acres of swamps, bogs, coastal "public safety." construction. department to require applicants to look marshes, iidal flats and boggy forest Less stringent requirements would be "Bridges aren't a water dependent u%e. it alternatives to Filling wetlands, it lands got a generally sympathetic airing imposed for moderate- and low-value but they are certainly needed," Reed would have said so in the law," Doyle before [he Board of Environmental ro.1T%heS. said. Wilherill said necessary construc- said. Protection Tuesday. Beth Nagusky, an attorney for the tion would qualify under the exception Witherill, replied alternatives are Industry spokesmen expressed concern Natural Resources Council of Maine, for public safely. required to fulfill sections of the law that the proposals would be too stringent, who had originally been critical of the But Tom Doyle, an attorney who forbid "unreasonable" intrusion into but the ihrec-hour session produced more classification system, said she had represents industries and utilities, said wetlands and the proposed language questions than complaints. The hearing changed her mind. that as drafted, the Jules would exclude had the endorsement of the attorney was held to pet public comments before a "As we work on this we have become general's office. formal proposal is sent to public more comfortable with this concept." private bridge construction over particu- Alice Knapp. a spokesman for the hearing. Nagusky said. "We ao. think the system larly valuable wetlands in the forest lands Maine Chamber of Commerce and Donald Withcrill, director of the may fie more workanble than the plan we of [he state. Industry, also called the proposed rules Department of Environmental Protec- proposed. " Doyle also urged exem ptions for utility too stringent and said the chamber is tion's natural resource division, said the Proposals by the council that the lines that may cross wetlands and drafting its own version of Weiland cor I proposed rules would allow "no net loss department conduct hearings on even I y,oith'cd,.,w here is no justifica- regulations. and would have them avail- Of wetland values" as a result of stiffer regulations had prompted the DEP io for requiring applicants able in time for a formal public hearing construction activities. staff to ma@e proposals of its own. The (0 consider alternative routes tot private scheduled for ]an. 4 in Augusta. He proposed a strict classification council originally proposed that all i I system that would forbid any consi Toe- N%cilan " be treated as equally valuable. 0(-' lion in "high,alue wetlands- except as %Villiarn Reed. an environmental plan. needed for wharfs, piers and other ner v,ith the Department of Transporta- ~0 Council and land tru Editorials to protect Cobscook ~k~,~ ~Je~z~@v B~ley remain Resource Specialist LURC The Natural Resources Council of Maine ill do and the Quoddy Regional Land Trust have wildli~qf LU RC~q's decision I ~t) ~1~i intervened before ~th~e Land U~s~e Regulation ~e~qd~qg~qe~q@ I ~1~@~"~hen it meets today in Gardiner, the ment into a fragile habitat. Co~n~u~ni~s~sion i~n opposition to a p~ic~ipo~s~ed ~p~qi~qo~ql~qe~qc, subdivision on C~ob~scook Bay. At a July Fur~qthc Land Use Regulation Commission should During testimony last July, Douglas ~Alul~- public hearing, the Council and QLRT i~qr~ql~ql~qf~qf, endorse its staff report that recommends len, manager of the Moosehorn Wildlife presented evidence d~emo~n~s~n-~a~tin~g that the is ~ql~qikel against a zone change request for a pro- Refuge, said he believed that the project 60~-~a~cr~e subdivision proposed by Mount Hol- main~qt~qa posed subdivision on Bel~lier Cove in Cobs- eventually would drive waterfowl out of the ly Inc. ~ould have a major impact on the time o area's valuable bald eagle and ~@i~m~erin~g Nan cook Bay, an important habitat for cove. "I really have a problem with a hous- black duck populations. Region waterfowl, especially black ducks, and the ing development in that area," Mullen told Mount Holly, a major land developer, h~a~s occasional home of bald eagles. the commission. So do a lot of other people ~l~i~c~ti~tion~ed L~URC to rezone a section of Located in Edmunds Township in Wash- concerned about sites targeted by similar ~B~e~lli~e~r Cove, i~n Edmunds Township, near ington County, the ~59 acres proposed for proposals up and down the coast of Maine. Mo~o~se~l~lorn National Wildlife Refuge. Mount Holly ~has developed several subdivi- development byMount Holly Inc. currently The zoning designations of the Land Use sions along the shore of Cobscook Bay, are divided into two restrictive zone desig- Regulation Commission are there for a pur- though this is the company's first proposal nations - 22 acres in a tightly regulated pose. They are written the way they are for in Maine~'s unorganized territories. Shoreland Protection Subdistrict, with the a reason. The commission recognized the Maine~'s Department of Inland Fisheries .lid Wildlife ~h~as called C~ob~,~c.~o~k Bay a remaining 38 acres under General inherent values in this land when it applied wildlife resource of international ~si~gnif~l- Management. the S~horeland Protection and General ~Man- ca~n~c~e. The bay supports 15 pairs of nesting The Yarmouth-based developer needs the agement restrictions. As the LURC staff bald eagles, ~t~h~e highest concentration of any entire parcel rezoned Residential Develop- already has observed, there is no good r~ea- area in the nor~th~e~a~s~t~en~t United States. In ad- difi~on, about a quarter of ~t~h~e ~s~i~a~t~e'~s winter- ment to allow for its subdivision into 12 lots, son for the agency to change its approach to i~n~g black duck population is found in Cobs- ~~~ from 2.5 to 5 acres in size, that would be land management in that area. There is, at cook Bay. North A~mc~ri~i,a~'s black duck ~PO ~- marketed for $~25,000 to $40,000 each. this time, no shortage of seasonal and sec- ul~a~tion ~has been in a serious d~eclin~e~p~o~r~p~, The controversy over this subdivision is a ond homes along Maine's coast. several decades. Wildlife biologists believe that loss of wintering habitat is one of [he classic example of the pressure for develop- Most important for L~LRC is the impact major reasons for the decline. ment that has been exerted on Maine's this and similar decisions will have on pub- "The area has been identified as a critically prime coastal property. For residents of the lic perception of how the commission re- important wildlife area which has been ~qz~qo~qr southern part of the state, it is an experi- gards its o~wn procedures, regulations and targeted for protection by state and federal slat ence in deja vu, while mid- and northern historic justification for protecting the land iidlif~t, officials," said Beth N~a~gu~sky. staff attorney for the Council. "It's an area that coastal residents will see present experi- placed in its care by the Legislature. should be zoned ~to protect wildlife values~. no nee ence mirrored in this conflict between re- not slated ~for intensive development." i~ty. Sh source protection and development. L~L~TRC has taken its share of abuse in the While there is not an active eagle nest on Housin There are three good reasons why the full pas~tfew years - some of it richly deserved, ~th~e proposed development site, Charles hi~qgh-p commission should accept the recommen- but much of it misdirected anger that right- Todd, a biologist for ~I~F&W, testified that afford dations of its staff. ly belonged to staffing problems and lack of ~i he area is used by eagles and provides pot~e~n- that of Although the developer has reached an clear direction from the executive and leg- ~ti~al nesting habitat. Todd said that a pair of Holly adult ~e~z~i~g~l~e~s showed up in ~th~e ~B~elli~er Cove sold to agreement with the Department of Inland is~lative branches of government. area this spring and could possibly nest in been s Fisheries and Wildlife on a plan that is even The commission now is in the position, in the coming year. argued more restrictive in some ways than the a sense, of starting over, of rebuilding or re- Doug Mullen, manager of the Mo~osch~orn ~s~i~qgn~qifi~qc National Wildlife Refuge, said that hundreds service LURC zoning regulations - including 250~- establishing public confidence in its mission ol'bl~ack ducks use B~e~lli~ef Cove every, %~i~m~er. The ~i~,f~oot buffers along the shoreline and volun- and its actions. The best way to begin that Wintering black ducks are em~e~ly ~a~ry~, subdiv tary restrictions on two inland parcels - process is With a clear statement by LURC ~b~e said. and arc likely ~1. ~be~qed~@~qriv~en away by ~co~qm~qp~qr there simply is too much at stake for the of commitment to consistent and straight- any activity along the shoreline. Mullen ~c~qo~qu~qr~qag species of wildlife in this area for the state forward application of its own zoning reg~u~- predicted that ~th~e development of ~B~e~lli~er P~qr~qo~qp~qu~qs to allow this type of subdivision encroach- latiors. It can start on Cobsc~ook Bay. Cove would ultimately result i~n the loss of LURC the area as suitable wintering grounds. ~a~qg~qo d~qe Because of the area's extraordinary resource d~qe~q@~qel~qo values,., ~h~e~.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is subdi~qv i~n~ve~gr~i~g~a~l~i~l~n~g the possibility ~of purchasing of Huy land ~su~r~r~o~4ndi~n~g B~elli~er Cove, including the located ~f~ir~l~ip~o~s~e~i~f. development site. ..If ~k~1~o~u~ri~l Ho~8qVdid sign a~i~r agreement with c~qaablis~] Maine's Department of Fish & Wildlife ~dam~qag ~.hich restricts development within 250 feet ~r~e~qs~qo~qu~qr of the shoreline; in exchange, ~th~e agency will to d~qe~qc~qi 6 - NR~CM, AUGUST/SE~PTEMBER 1989 B. Coastal Pollution 1, What are your State's major coastal pollution trends and problems? What water quality parameters and contaminants does the State monitor? Please attach relevant statewide or coastal reports and a brief description of state water quality monitoring programs. While the quality of Maine's coastal waters is good overall, recent finding point to rising levels of pollutants from a wide range of sources. Toxic substances are.washing into Maine waters from urban and agricultural runoff, atmospheric pollution and sewage overflow. Scientific reports have documented certain problems related to bacteria from sewage, residential discharges, non-maintained sand filter systems, malfunctioning sewage treatment plants and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Also, hydrocarbons, trace metals accumulating in coastal sediments and fish tissues and toxic substances have been identified as contaminants causing water pollution problems. (See The Gulf of Maine, Sustaining our Common Heritage, Katrina Van Dusen and Anne Johnson-Hayden, SPO, November 1989.) DEP's Marine Monitoring Program, initiated in 1987, is establishing baseline data on a broad set of persistent toxic contaminants including trace metals, hydrocarbons and synthetic organic compounds. More complete descriptions of the program can be found in the "Final Project Report" reproduced below and in Maine's Marine Environment: A Plan for Protection, March 1989. This program to date has provided data in several harbors and bays; however, it will be several years before the entire coast is characteri2ed. DMR monitors marine waters and shellfish tissues for public health parameters including the red tide organism and fecal and total coliform. Overboard discharge, "the private discharge of domestic wastewater into public surface waters," is a problem which has caused the State to take action in order to protect its coastal waters and shellfisheries. Overboard discharge systems discharge treated effluent into surface waters where traditional septic systems or connections to municipal systems are not a viable option. Despite this improvement over the traditional "straight pipe" discharge, over one-fourth of the State's mussel and clam habitat now is closed to shellfish harvesting because of contamination from domestic sewage pollution. The State had permitted over 3,000 overboard discharge systems as of 1987, when a law prohibiting any new such systems was passed. Currently, Maine is identifying redeemable shellfish areas, reviewing discharges that must be removed by 1992, and helping organi2e a true story project to demonstrate the advantages of cooperative joint solutions. Funds and technical assistance are being provided to assist coastal town and private homeowners with design and construction of alternatives to overboard'discharge systems, 11 On November 7, Maine voters passed a $4.4 million bond issue to fund several sewage treatment projects. $1 million is earmarked for removal of overboard discharges. Residents will be reimbursed for 90% of the cost of replacement, businesses 50% and seasonal residents 25%. The Department of Marine Resources will establish priorities so that those systems discharging to productive shellfish areas will be the first to be removed. Expenditure of these funds should result in the reopening of several clam flats. $1 million will be spent to continue funding for the small community program to help fund improvements or purchase equipment for treatment plants. $2.4 million will be used to reduce CSOs in Casco Bay. 2. In which specific areas (e.g. specific bays or estuaries) has water quality significantly improved or declined? What factors (such as increased urbanization, upgraded STPs) have caused these changes? In highly urbanized and industrialized areas water quality has declined significantly. For example, Casco Bay shows a high incidence of liver tumors in flounder. It has been identified by the State as a priority area for clean-up actions. Also, legislation has been introduced nominating Casco Bay for designation under the National Estuary Program. Additionally, saltmarsh plants in the Saco River demonstrate high levels of certain chemicals discharged into the water from tanneries and other industries. Fish in the Androscoggin are contaminated with dioxin from paper mill effluent, which shellfish in Boothbay Harbor contain high levels of lead. Non-point source pollution such as runoff from farm fields, parking lots, and rooftops, etc., is an issue which the State has been investigating; changes in land use planning, such as the use of detention basins and buffer strips are being promoted. 3. Which agency is responsible for the 401 certification program? Briefly describe the certification process, including how the state CZM agency interacts with the water quality agency. Is the 401 process effective? How can it be improved? The Water Bureau of the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for issuing 401 water quality certificates. one person is responsible for all marine certificates in the State. Because he also is responsible for administering the Marine monitoring Program he has familiarity with the contaminant problems of coastal waters, so certification decisions are more informed than they have been in the past. However, the increasing number of applications is rapidly exceeding the ability of one person to fulfill this function. An MOU between DEP and SPO to improve water qual'ity has enhanced interaction between the two agencies, insuring that. coastal policies are reflected in DEP decisions. The major 12 hindrance to effectiveness in the 401 program is lack of basi@line data, a problem gradually being addressed by the Marine Monitoring Program. If Casco Bay receives funding under the Estuaries Program State money will be redirected to other areas of the coast. Coordination needs to be improved with the other agencies responsible for marine water quality, including DMR, DOT and DHS. 4. What are your state's efforts to mitigate plastics pollution problems, including all forms of marine debris, e.g. driftnets? What has your state done to address tributyltin pollution? Plastics: Plastic items were the most prevalent collected during the volunteer cleanup of Maine's shores last October. The cleanup is thoroughly reported in the performance report for the quarter, including statistics on number@of miles covered, type of debris and number of participants. The DEP's environmental monitoring program, initially funded through the State Coastal Program, found that pollutants are degrading the marine environment and that a larger research program is needed to assess the extent of the problem. The 1989 Legislature created a Solid Waste Authority, one of the primary purposes of which is to develop a strategy to address plastics in the marine environment. Also, the issue of waste disposal from recreational boats currently is being studied to identify how plastics might be eliminated from State waters. Tributyltin: A 1988 State law bans the use of tributyltin on non-aluminum boats under 80 feet. 5. What is being done by your State to address non-point source pollution? What is the status of the non-point source plans required by the EPA under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act? What steps have been taken in the following areas: stormwater management; water quality-related considerations in marina sitings; special area management plans for estuarine areas; institution of best management practices for land disturbing activities; educational efforts; and other? The DEP is developing a state-wide non-point source program. With the help and guidance of Coastal program staff, they have developed an assessment and management plan as required by EPA under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The assessment has been accepted by EPA as adequate. The management plan is still under review. Stormwater management, water quality aspects of marina siting, estuary protection, development of best management practices and educational efforts have all been included in the proposed management plan. Copies of both documents are available. 13 6. Describe the CZM agency's involvement in EPA initiatives such as the National Estuary Program (include committees on 4hich you are a member) and Near Coastal Waters Program. Address ways in which the initiatives can be improved. SPO has written a letter of support for Maine's nomination of Casco Bay for the National Estuary Program. SPO staff have met with EPA Region 1 staff regarding the Near Coastal Waters Initiative. We have provided considerable data and guidance in @he development of the draft document on near coastal waters issues in Maine. EPA is providing partial funding for a conference to be held in December on Gulf of Maine environmental quality issues. This conference will fulfill requirements of the Near Coastal Waters program for public education and input on coastal water quality issues. 14 ~0 Report cites serious problems for Gulf of Mai ~I~B~Y BOB C~L~M~V~M~N ~qf~qf~4qp a ~n~ari~De ~r~e~x~x~i~n~ces~, p~6qf~6qt~u~q@c~c and ~i~nte~n- ~c~omp~q=~y smoke stacks, and the ~0qw Staff Writer ~G~S Signs of gulf's troubles development that have ~e~s~im to affect ter~i~s that flush from farm fields Pollution and ~o~@ ~q- th~e~.G~u~.~1~f~qZ~co~sy~6q=~,~,~, ~q. ~@~4~1 =~r~e~t~i~o~u~r~c~e, with suburban lawns and home sewage ~qs~qe Gulf of Mat". t~h~e er~f~i~s~hi~ng continue to blight ~th can Some pollution ~r~e~s~t~i~lt~s In ~t~he ~ne vast ~n~ea~r-~sbo~r~e ~s~e~a that stretches ~9 Dangerous Quantities 01 lead ~are found in the ~qW ~.~b tit ~2qZ~q@~i~qo ~qI~52qr f the Northeast coast from Cape Cod to mu~d~f~l~ats and sands cloven remote s~e~t~4i~o~qm c~o~nf~e~r~a~t~i~oe "we ~l~r~it~e~q@d~a~id to by ~t~he ~V~ou~nd~q"~r~i~t for was spills, the ~1~6q=~0 ~qM~L~qW ~1~1~h~ad~n~o~l~re~c~u~r~n~e~dt~o one ~qS~qS Nov~. such as Penobscot Say. Improve~d~c~o~o~p~er~at~h~e ~eme~nt~i~ort~b~e~g~ul~l.~" clams ~F~ti A ~i~n~ew study. prepared for an ~l~i~at~er~in~st~ion~a~l confer. Copies of t~he report and information an the Rut "the greatest threat" is not ~qt ~~~ce an the Gulf of Maine, reports that the gulf, ~0 Heavily ~I~r~idus~tr~i~a~l~i~r~e~d harbors such as St. conference ~Lr~e available from t~he State ~P~l~L~w~i~h~i~g ~u~l~ts in the ~Im~me~-d~qi~qat~qe. ~n~C~* ~O~qM ~t~he most uct~iv~e coastal waters In ~Lne John, N.~B.~, and Boston ore ~so seriously ~qW~i~c~e,A~a~i~g~ust~c ~q:~q@~M~8q=~I~l~mt~f~h~e report says. R~at~qb~qi~qr world, ~m~e be ~1~q- ~- My ~b c~a~l~s~, ~de~gr~ade~dth~e~i they are ~"u~nlike~ly~"~to ever ~l~lul~@y ~~~1~6~q=~0~u~s VY ~8qZ~.~.~,~2qL cte recover. ~T~I~*e~v~ide~n~ce: ~4 ~V~ar~4~mn~ou~s quantities of lead am found l~i~n the ~0 Commercial fishing is in trouble be~t~au~s~e ~~u~c~i~f~i~et~s and ~qMr~id~s of even remote sections such as of declining fish ~slo~oks, and there is evidence Penobscot bay. that Some Important ~spe~oi~e~s have slopped A threatened Gulf ~e~fi~e~*v~i~ly industrialized harbors such a~s ~S~L~I~n~t reproducing. John. Ne~w Brunswick~, mind Boston ~&~r~t so ~ser~iDu~s~J~y ~&~g~m~ded th~a~t~L~hey~er~e unlikely to ever tu~Dy recover. ~0 Liver lesions, totting fins and "c~"h~e, forms *Commercial ~f~i~s~h~i~n i~s~l trouble because of ~ofenvironmen~ial ~s~ire~ss~"~ar~e common ~in~s~om~e New report details a steady env~qironme ~@e~cli~i~aing fish stocks, and there Is evidence that some species ~of fish and ~q"I~f~f~i~sh. By BOB CUMMINGS k~@ The 63-pag~e document was pre- fishing industry important species hove stopped reproducing. ins ~0 Guy Gannett S~e~r~Ace pared by Katrina Van D s~en and employ 20,000 peop ~* liver lesions, rotting fins and "other for, ~f ~0 Several hund r~qe thousand acres of mud flats Anne Johnson Hayd~enu of the But both the heal e~~0~r~onme~nt~al stress" are Common In some ~ape~- are closed to commercial harvesting due to des ~o~f fish and shellfish~. ~b~e~c~ter~ie pollution. Pollution and ov~er~f~ish~in~qj con- Maine State Planning Office in industry and the a ~* S~ev~ir~a~d hundred thousand acres a mud~f~i~at~s tinue to blight the Gulf of Maine, cooperation with coastal protection the area for r~qecr~qe closed to commercial ~h~&-v~e~s~ting du~e to bacteria s~h~i~l~r~e~, New Brunswick and N~o~v~L ~S~M~U~L It It ~p~u~t of ~t~h~E the, vast near-shore sea that officials in Massachusetts, New Pollution. background materials ~f~o~r an ~I~nte~qm~at~i~o~n~e~J ~c~n~f~e~r~e~n~m site ch~e~s t~he length of the northeast Hampshire, New B~m~ns.ick and ~7t~,~E 63~~qW coa~s~q! from Cape Cod to Nova Nova Scotia. It is part of the V~n Duser~i an 6, held in P~ort~l~L~n~n~d Dec, ID, 11 Scot a. background materials for an inter- 'The Gulf o Suit ~F~l~a~-~a~n~i~r~, ~- ~re~p~o~r~!~)~-~n~d ~e~qm~le~l~, A n~e~w study. prepared ~lo~,ta, national conference on the Gulf of J~S C~qiar~Ig~er~qOU Protection off ~v~er~s~i~n~j the ~'~o~v~e~i~, international conference on h~e Maine to be held in Portland Dec. G~0qu~8qlf~2ql~0qOn the danger~ql~qi~.~5t .I ~qF~qi~qb~qi~ql~uted Gulf of Maine, reports the f ~was 10, 11 and 12. once one of the most productive Gov. John R. McK~em~an said the ne~qw~ir fully When an international conference on the Gulf of coastal waters in the world but may r~ep~o~q@ and conference are "first ~n steps towards reversing the "over. Maine assembles In Portland next month, it will have a be irreversibly damaged by ch~ermi. urc~es, ca~ls, poisonous heavy metals, bac_ harvest ~ing of marine r~eso full plate of problems to digest. pollution and intensive land devel- teri~a and ov~er~f~i~sh~in~g~. opment that have begun to affect and b~each~go~ers are Anew study prepared especially for the conference The evidence: the Gulf ecosystem." combination of poll says the gulfi~s rapidly being poisoned by chemical and ~, Dangerous quantities of lead McKeman called the gulf I 'a fishing, the authors are found in th~e mud~f~la~ts and sands shared resource" with the other Van Dus~en and bacter~qW pollution and Is being subjected to other forms of even remote sections such as states and provinces and said the much of the d~egrada of environmental stress, such as overfish~ing and coastal Penobscot Bay. report and conference "are of small pollution ~qc land development. ~, Heavily industrialized harbors intended to lay the groundwork for "We cannot ~qpo such as St. John, N.B., and Boston improved, cooperative manage- spill, one indus~qtri~qa There's really nothing new in that report except the are so seriously degraded that they merit of the gulf." one development pr urgency with which it warns that the growing are "unlikely" to ever fully Copies of the repo~n and infor- the evidence of putref~actlonoft~he gulf "maybe difficult orimpossible recover. mation on the conference are harm," they write. to reverse." Still, we must try - and now - to combat ~@ Commercial fishing is in trou- available from the State Planning Rather, the probl ble because of declining fish stocks, Office in Augusta. thousands of dis the sort of killing pollution experienced by waters off and there is evidence some impor- The conference was planned in industries and mun urbanized states to the South and parts of Europe. That is tant species have stopped response to evidence that "pollu- out of harmful ~qc the mission ofthe conference, which will include reproducing. tion, habitat destruction, and industrial and po ~@ Liver lesions, rotting fins and o~@~er~us~e- threaten the economic smoke stacks, and delegates from other New England states ~a~nd the he forms of en~,ironmenral and recreational resources that have and bacteria that fl ~,~q;~O~r Maritime Provinces. ~s r~e~ss~'r are common in some species attracted fishermen and settlers to fields, urban site The gulf, as Gov. McKern~an points out, is "a shared of fish and shellfish. the area for more than four lawns and home sep resource" stretching from Nova Scotia to Massachusetts ~, Several hundred thousand centuries. Some pollution acres of mudfla~ts are closed to European explorers first d~i~scov- immediate death o Bay. Boston Harbor, the most polluted In the nation, is on commercial harvesting due to bac. crcd the wealth of fish life in the nism. When 5~,~0~q0~q0 ~qg the GulfofMaine. It and other industrialized harbors I teria pollution. Gulf of Maine in the 1500s and the was spilled into P~qe such as Saint John, New Brunswick, may simply be too dirty to reclaim. But every effort must be made to protect the gulf In general. The new gulf study suggests that the biggest threat to the gulf i~s not some big, dramatic event such as an o~i~l spill, but Something far more insidious. It is the "largely unseen, sub-lethal, chronic contamination" by everyday Commerce in and around the gulf. It~'~s time to start reversing that disastrous pattern. A Working Conference December 10-12, 1989 Portland, Maine Dear Conference Participant: I am very pleased to invite you, on behalf of Governor Gregg, Governor Dukakis, Premier McKenna, and Premier Buchanan to join us in Convened by shaping a plan to ensure that the Gulf of Main remains one of the world's Governor John R. McKernan, Jr. Govern Michael Dukakis most productive ecosystems. As part of this effort, we are convening a con- Premier Frank McKenna Governor Judd Gregg ference that will lay the foundation for cooperative state/provincial work to sustain the productivity for which the Gulf is reknown. The Gulf of Maine is a resource at risk. This sea within a sea, which extends from Cape Cod Bay to the Bay to the Bay of Fundy, has abundant marine and coastal resources. It is threatened, however, by unprecedented pressures from coastal development, resource use, and pollution. On December 10-12,1989, we will convene a conference in Portland, Maine to bring together interested citizens and professionals from govern- ment, marine research, and academia. The conference will provide a forum for people to discuss priority issues and develop a framework that ad- dresses; the following areas: >- monitoring environmental condidtions >- improving marine water quality > managing land resources and land uses > protecting marine habitats the Gulf >- developing coastal and marine resources encouraging public involvement and participation >- strengthening international relations of This working conference is a first step in framing a plan for the Gulf that look, beyond state, Provincial, and national boundaries. In order to Maine Sustaining sustain our c'ommon sea, we must begin a process of collaborative planning and management. Consensus on the Gulf's future can only be reached by Maine sharing information and ideas in open dilogue. We hope that you will join Nova Scotia Our us at the conference in our ongoing efforts to sustain the Gulf of Maine. Massachusetts Common Sincerely, New Brunswick New Hampshire Heritage Honorable John R. McKernan, Jr. Governor, Maine IMPROVING MARINE WATER QUALITY THROUGH a. Chemical analyses or sediments from BETTER SHORELINE MANAGEMENT- Casco Bay, Boothbay Harbor, Machias and wide geographic distribution of Sediment quality along the Maine coast. Maine Department of Environmental Protection b. Chemical analyses of blue musse areas; Piscataua River estuary, Casco B and Jonesport Bays, would compliment t ,FINAL PROJECT REPORT approximation of biological availability of INTRODUCTION C. Development of an in-situ bloas would enable the monitoring program to n 1988, the Main legislature established a new marine environmental availability of pollutants in areas of trie c monitoring program the purpose of which was to determine the extent, not Indiaerious, in particular along the sand sources and fates of chemical pollution along Maine's 3,800 mile, coastline. The program was minimally funded during its initial -year with the d. To supplement the information -.expectation *to expand it depending on the success of that first year monitoring program, coastal pollution In Because expectations for the program were so hio) and the task other works would be refered or qua large, it became-clear from the outset that program were to gain "incorporated into the monitoring program. creatibility much" more 'needed, to' be-done than could 'be done using the original $33,000'state budget. 3. Based on the informatinandexperqie -a long I ro t period, term p an wo Results which Could be used by Tesource m anagers and environmental plan and budoet would then be developed.,': regulators were identified as the top'priority for that first year. Faced with the dilemma of having inadequate funcis to accomplish the necessary 4. A program strategy In the form o results..- the Maine Department. of Envronmental Protection applied for and Legislature would be. written. which wou received that-Project grant from the MaIne State Planning Office's Coastal, pollution along Maine's coast, what the re Program. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the two how the State of Maine can best protect its agencies on September 17,1900. RESULTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION That -1 a If ur, d' Ti provlded NOA Four Immeoate objectives were identified as critical to increphe Managernent through the Maine State Planni likelihood of the marine environmental monitorino program's contlnUnCe directly responsible for the widely held became the basis for this project. Environmental Monitoring Program was not of expansion. With the exception, of 1. Staffing would be committed at a level or one halt time,Biologist 11, developm -ent), all four objectives were 8qs one rull time Biologist It, one full time Chemist 11 together with laboratory progress reports (appended) describe the sp services. The first miator oroduct of-- the OCR0qM 2. 1 n order -to place pollution data along the pAst of Maine in implementation of Casco Bays Aera1,Ao perspective, collection of baseline Information from seastal areas further analyZstng Casco Bay, the State was of Maine was tasked as follows: plan to adequately address the issues of pol Action outlined the following management steps the State of Maine would take during 1989 as well as a series of steps it would take in the 1990s. AGENDA FOR ACTION IN CASCO BAY IMMEDIATE ACTIONS - 1989 1. The Governor shall nominate Casco Bay to be designated a Nationally Significant Estuary. 2. Declare Casco Bay a Priority Waterbody for comprehensive action by all State Agencies. 3. Strictly enforce of all waste discharge licenses held in Casco Bay through use of penaities and corrective action 4. Review and revise municipal and industrial discharge license monitoring requirements to reflect concerns of Casco Bay. 5. Require municipal monitoring of stormwater and combined sewer overflows. 6. Report violations of water quality standards immediately to municipalities. 7. Assess present and potential economic value of uses within Casco Bay. 8. Prepare legislation requiring all marinas to provide for adequate pumpout facilities. CONTINUING ACTIONS FOR THE 1990s 1. Identify, priorize and adequately treat stormwater and combined sewer overflows. 2. Quantify inputs of toxics, nutrients, and bacteria into Casco Bay. 3. Remove discharges conflicting with designated uses. 4. Prepare a Comprehensive Casco Bay Watershed Plan. 5. Develop a public education program on Casco Bay's environmental issues. 6. Review and coordinate inter-agency management goals for Casco Bay. 7. Expand and improve the State's environmental data management system. 8. Review and revise as necessary State policy on the location of snow dumps and the ocean disposal of dredge spoils. As of October, 1989, all short-term steps had been implemented, including the marina pump-out legislation, and all long-term steps had been either completed or initialized. The second major product of the OCRM grant was the preparation of Maine's Marine Environment - A Plan For Protection (appended). In this report, the distribution of sediment and blue mussel tissue chemistry is reported across the state and a general statement of coastal environment health is made. More importantly, Secion II of the report includes the long term work plan and funding strategy to advance the marine monitoring program. In order to complete the work plan, a budget of $816,350 has been proposed. Clearly, the time period over which the plan is implemented depends on a variety of funding sources and levels. The report was submitted to the Maine Legislature in March of 1989. During that same session of the legislature, the marine program's budget was increased from the original year's $33,000 to $100,000 in fiscal year 1989. For 1990, a similar appropriation is anticipated. The marine monitoring strategy has since been incorporated into the State of Maine's Clean Water Strategy. Based on its promise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency earmarked approximately $67,000 for furtherance of coastal monitoring activities out of the State's general operating account. This money will be used almost exclusively to complete a remaining backlog of chemical samples. The third major product was the nomination of Casco Bay to the National Estuary Program (appended). Due to the concern about Casco Bay's water quality and the high value of the bay as a natural and socio-economic resource, the State of Maine is committed to protecting the bay from futher degradation as well as correcting problems where they exist. The strength of this nomination lies not in the fact that Casco Bay is as polluted as some of the heavily urbanized bays and estuaries around the country and already in the National Estuary Program, but rather that Casco Bay warrants inclusion in the program in order to prevent very real pollution threats from necessitating very expensive restoration. Additionally, because of the variety of biological resources and land uses in its watershed and because Casco Bay is more typical of coastal areas with similar population pressures, it could serve as a model for more coastal areas around the country than those major metropolitan waters now in the program. After the July nomination had been submitted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reion I, contributed services in-king to advance our understanding of Casco Bay's pollution problems. Their contribution contained three components: 1. Fluorescent dye studies were conducted to document trajectories and zones of dilution from and around the outfalls of the municipal treatment plants in Portland, South Portland, and Yarmouth. 2. Effluent toxicity tests were on treated effluent from the city of Portland and South Portland. 3. Benthic samples were collected to begin development of a biological community data base which will eventually be used to develop biological criteria for ambient pollution monitoring. The fourth major product was the development of a proposal to revise surface water classifications of all the State's coastal waters (appended). Public hearings were held in Portland, Rockland, Ellsworth, and Eastport during August. Information collected and synthesized as a result of the OCRM grant award assisted with the formation of the classification revisions. The proposal goes now to the Legislature, where the revisions are to be voted into law. RECOMMENDATIONS Although significant progress has been made during this first start-up year of the marine monitoring program, many issues have been deliberately ignored until resources are available to properly address them. Three issues which were identified in the statewide strategy as deserving of attention have over the last year become so visible and controversial that they can no longer be ignores. 1. Eutrophication - has been identified by some workers as the most serious environmental threat, on a global basis, to the health of our oceans. Although this is not known to be a problem yet in Maine, there are some areas where concerns have been raised. In Casco Bay, two areas, Harraseekett River estuary and Maquoit Bay, experienced phytoplankton blooms sufficient to prompt public complaints. In one instance (Maquoit Bay), the bloom was severe and implicated as the cause of extensive shellfish mortalities. To date the marine program has focused on toxic chemical pollution. We recommend that steps be taken now to assess the threat of eutrophication and develop an appropriate statewide strategy to address it. 2. Dredging - Is now being proposed more and more frequently along the Maine coast as both industrial harbors are being developed and expanded and recreational boating is increasing. The real environmental impacts associated with both the dredging and disposal are actually not known. True ecological monitoring has never been conducted on any areas in Maine, yet fisherman report higher incidences of lesions on fish caught in the vicinity of at least one of the approved dump sites. At best, toxicity tests on the materials themselvs are able to show only short-term impacts and do not address the chronic impacts. We recommend that the marine program focus on dredging and disposal impacts and expand that which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now doing and develop State guidelines or policy to manage these activities. 3. Biological Monitoring - was identified early on in the monitoring program as one of the long term goals of the program. Through development of biological criteria and monitoring, it will be possible to determine whether or not anomalous communities exist. This will then trigger the question of wheter the anomaly is natural or a result of pollution. Protection of biological and ecological integrity is seen as the ultimate reason for pollution management. Development of criteria is needed for each ecological region and is therefore expensive. In Maine, we anticipate more than a dozen regions and habitat types, each requiring development of a unique set of criteria. We recommend that the monitoring program begin this long term task by selecting one region and habitat type and using it as a pilot study to develop the methodology for marine biological criteria development in Maine. CONCLUSION The NOAA-OCRM grant contributed directly to the success of Maine's newly established Marine Environmental Monitoring Program. By funding additional staff resources, the grant enabled the program to achieve the four major management objectives identified in the project description; staffing, data compilation, program development, and program strategy development and proposal. The program was consequently well received by both the public and Legislature, and has resulted in the attraction of further interest and resources from both state and federal sources. DEP ISSUE PROFILE Nonpoint Source Polluyion Control P4 DEP BULLETIN revised: October 1989 contact:(207)289-7659 Attention: License Holders Subject: Good News for Overboard Dischargers BACKGROUND Date: September 1989 Contact: 289-3901 The clean water in Maine's rivers, streams, lakes, costal waters, wetlands and groundwater is a precious resource, a source of pride for Maine residents, and a critical component of the natural environment that is so attractive to visitors. It deserves our best efforts for protection. Two major types of pollution threaten our water quality: point source and nonpoint in 1989 the State of Maine amended the Overboard Discharge Law to make it easier source. for licensees to comply. The basic ideas, behind the law haven't changed. The law still: What is "point" source pollution? � Prohibits new discharges Point sources are the easier of the two to identify because they are direct discharges � Prohibits increases of existing discharges to waterbodies, mostly by way of pipes. Examples include discharges, usually � Prohibits the expansion of existing discharges to licensed, from sewage treatment plants and factories. For the past 15 years Maine year-round discharges has made steady progress in cleaning up point source pollution. One dramatic � Emphasizes the cleanup of shellfish areas result has been the return of gamefish to several large rivers along which � Aims for the eventual removal of all discharges manufacturing and sewage treatment facilities are located. The old law left some people with a lot of concern and uncertainty, and most of you What is "nonpoint" source pollution? let the State know about it. So, in 1989, the Overboard Discharge Law law was amended to Nonpoint source (NTPS) pollution is more diicult to identify. It does not originate resolve some of the uncertainties. The amended law: from a specific "point," like a pipe. Instead, it results when large numbers of the 0 removes the special exemption that allowed same human activities contribute pollution in a scattered manner after rain commercial discharges to increase storms. It is often characterized as "runoff" from farms, construction sites, 0 Sets up a fund to help pay for the replacement of parking lots, and Toads. Forestry, mining, and waste disposal activites also overboard discharge systems contribute to the problem. 0 Allows discharges to remain in place until en alternative waste disposal system is possible and DEP has made funds The principal pollutants contributed by these sources include nutrients, sediment, available to you to help pay for the replacement pesticides, toxic substances, organic enrichment, salts, and petroleum and its 0 Limits the instances in which DEP can require holding tanks byproducts. This should make you breathe easier, but don't relax too much. In return for the above What are the impacts of NPS pollution? How widespread are they? benefits, the Legislature wants you and the Department to pay more attention to your Despite the progress in cleaning up point source pollution, degraded water quality waste discharge system to make sure that it complies with your waste discharge license. In fact, the new law requires DEP to inspect each system at least twice each year and to pass persists in a number of Maine's waterbodies as a result of NPS pollution. the cost of the inspections on to you, the licensee. The inspection fee is in addition to the licensing fee that you may have paid or will pay. In Maine, NPS pollution has caused an estimated 187,000 acres of groundwater aquifers to fail to meet safe drinking water standards and now threatens about 53,000 acres of lakes, Use of several estuaries along Maine's coast, over 1,000 miles of rivers and streams, and 35 lakes and ponds have all been impaired by nonpoint source pollution. On a national level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that a full 60 percent of all pollution sources are nonpoint related. W/89-3 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control-2 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control-3 What is being done to control NPS pollution? Motor Oil: Motor oil contains toxic chemicals that are harmful to animals, Nonpoint source pollution is now acknowledged to be a major source of water use humans, and fish. Do not dump used motor oil down storm drains or on the impairment to Maine surface water and groundwater resources. An NPS pollution ground. Recycle all used motor oil by taking it to a serivce statioin or local recycling assessment report, recently completed by DEP, indicates that nonpoint-related center. impacts occur in every drainage basin in Maine. . Car Washing. Like fertilizers, many car detergents contain phosphates. If you To respond to the variety of NPS problems, EPA and state environmental agencies need to wash your vehicle, use non-phosphate detergents. have developed a series of management program objectives and action plans to increase the effectiveness of both federal and state NPS controls. Achieving visible . Pet Waste: Animal wastes contain bacteria and viruses that contaminate water quality improvement or protecting high-quality waters from degradation will shellfish and cause the closing of swimming areas. Pet owners should pick up after be accomplished using one or a combination of six management initiatives: their pets with a newspaper or scooper and dispose of the wastes in the garbage or information and education, financial assistance, technical assistance, monitoring toilet. and evaluation, enforcement, and continued planning. . Septic Systems: An improperly working septic system can contaminate Currently, in Maine, best management practices (BMPs) are being developed to groundwater and create public health problems. Avoid adding unnecessary grease control NPS pollution in all land uses. BMPs, the building blocks of the NPS and solids to your septic system. Inspect your septic system annually, and pump it program, are conservation practices or ways of performing specific activities in a out at least every 3 to 5 years. manner that protects water quality. The program encourages municipalities to consider the use of BMP, in their planning and ordinance development efforts currently underway. . Boat Discharges: Dumping boat sewage indroduces disease-causing bacteria and viruses into the water and adds nitrates and phosphates that can trigger algae blooms. Boat owners should always use Marine Sanitation Devices or pump-out Can I help reduce NPS pollution? facilities at marinas. Yes. Nonpoint source pollution is a big problem, but the good news is that in our everyday activities we can help reduce nonpoint pollution and keep our environment clean. By making simple changes in our daily lives we can make a tremendous How can I get additional information on NPS pollution? difference in the quality of Maine's water resources. Here are jus a few ways youust a few ways you For more information on what you and your community can do to reduce nonpoint can help. source pollution, phone DEP's Bureau of Water Quality Control, NPS Program, at (207) 289-7659 or write to: a Litter. Place litter, including cigarette butts and fast food containers, in trash receptacles. Never throw litter in streets or down storm drains. Recycle as much Department of Environmental Protection as possible. Bureau of Water Quality Control - NPS Program State House Station 17 . Fertilizers: Fertilizers contain nitrates and phosphates which, in abundance, Augusta, ME 04333 cause algae blooms that can lead to fish kills. Avoid overuse offertilizers, and do not apply them before a rainfall. Other sources of information and assistance include your regional planning agency and your local Soil and Water Conservation District. . Pesticides: Many household products made to exterminate pests are also toxic to humans, animals, aquatic organisms, and plants. Follow the label directions carefully. Do not overuse pesticides, and use natural alternatives whenever possible. . Household Hazardous Products: Many common household products (paint thinners, moth balls, and drain and oven cleaners, to name a few) contain toxic ingredients. When improperly used or discarded, these products are a threat to public health and the environment. Do not pour hazardous products down any drain or toilet. Do not discard with regular household trash. Use natural and less toxic alternatives whenever possible. Contact DEP's Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control at 289-2651 for information on proper disposal. Sewage overflows threaten urban and rural waterways Council joins local group to J Push for clean-up in Thomaston board discharge. the Council promised to follow through an the other major polluters. [MINOR We Picked Thomaston because of the - ------ state ofrici.,i, to act.- magnittiileoriheprohl,m.ndth,failuttor The Council and the Tidewater Assn 7 cla- _Z7- lion arcaitcadv seeing some results or their @F_CiJ -its- demand for a Z ., me ling bcl"ecn the two organizations and M322 the DFP, enforcement officials from the 1, ------ Water Bnrc.u for the fi rs ell ho serious the problems were and,how- do 19commilmern tosolving them. rot the first time, thcdepartment appears ready to take enforcement action against W Thomaston. 'The SelVage treatinent plant has been inatrunctioning for The Conned and the association also Vears, closing a laqe area of clain flats. Iched"Ied occiing, with inem orri,iah, to uv to resolve the problems and move forward in n consirlictive and limely manner. "Our ore made rourt of mid-coa@t citizens to press r.Icilitv info compli Conli "Iling the Council*% efforts to cur- ",end the Council decided to become invol, desire is to work with local a.nd state officials fail coa,aI Pollution, NRCN4 has agreed to ed because of our ongoing commitment to to ensure that prompt corrections Considered b! man% to be primarils a problem in large urban areas of [he Noribeast. combined IQ assist .11 clearing up coastal PoIllition. Over the past to bring the KrL wvagt ci,erfho@ (C-0) strikes smullcommunifies, as %ell. The se%age plant here in Thomaston, ,or "'.. @mce with Maine, is frtquenfl% unable to treat sewage and storrn-vater runoff simulloneoush. shutting _"Po fibeThomaslon sewage treat- two years, M we pushed for tighter restric- federal and state 11"I." said Kre,sman. F it down The ptoducti - I orent plan,. Conocilationney Ron Ktcisman, tions on overboard discharge system%, we "As long as of"ci. 1, commit , o an ll@- shellfish beds sho.n in the background. working with the Georges River Tidewater said that these private systems were onfv part pedilious clean-up schedule, we do not an- A-cialion. identified the Thomaston plant of the coastal sewage problem. We noted ticipate thm legal action will be necessary. as one of the worst polluters on the coast. that until DEJ`acldress@ the pollution caused However. because of the length of time that I he facility, v,hich is located near [he by town IM1111)(MI Systems which are these problems have plagued the plant, and month of ihe St. Gco,pe River, has been discharging into estuaries, and until the the extent of shellfish beds which are clos- in ;' Ifinwhoniel: for Yc.r,. but ri,ilher the department goes. after violatire- of state and ed. The Council and the Tidewater Amocia- Depart 7e.1 0f Environmental Protection federal law, we will not sce the reclamation lion want immediate action. Otherwise, we north,lomn'spoternment hadmadeefforis or many shellfish areas. will have to turn to the courts for legal en- to c erect the problem,. "During the legitlalive debate on over- forcer"Vell. Th@e Georges River Tidewater Association dec,,.,e.t,d the problem.,, which incinde numerous viol-alions of state and federal law. The plant's di0iirges or me, and poorl-N treated @cvvnyc have closed a large area of el in flats v hich the lide-iler A,nciali,)n h;,, c:.I,t,l.f,d -,fld bc-,ith $@Or),(M - wo n.,f,. This o- he the largest in the maic in 4or le"n, of "I'l, T "a11, A-cialion came to its :"i.mg lol 119.11 K,ri'man, In the pr-iing, the o%eelllo@ pipe in Thomaston (abo%e) flo%s with The same ferocil% a, tht ent at right, % Mch leads into Nairragansett B.@ im Rhode Island. Not ohl) is n%, untreated -,,spi,oblem,butst rm-alermnoffalso brings %ith It toxic chemical, and other com- or p.unds that threaten uster qualiq. ~0 ~8qo~6qt ~8q0~8qC an te ~2qof~qi~2qk~qi~2qa~ql~qs Say e ~4qq~qi~4qn~2qe~" ~qsta ~a~l~l ~i~m~c~u~8qf~8qt~'~l ~q@~h~o~t~c~' G~4qa~qlf Of ~b~, ~-~Q~p-~C~'~qt~q@~e Years pollution levels on rise in rutted ~w~a~t~c~d~v~i~s~s~@~' ~r~a~t~a~c~r ~t~a~k~t~a sail ~l~o~t 'I ~5~1 ~o~c~t~a~r, ~I~t~e~-~c ell ~s~e~l~s In d~i~l~i~g ~i~l~,~q@~o~s~i~b~q@~c ~u~, ~d~i~, ~h~a~f~q@ d~i~,~cha~r~r~,~c art: ~qo~qt ~t~h~e scope ~q@~a~t~i~i~a~t~l~qb~.~b~q!~c~, ~1~1~q"~ql~l .4~,~1~1~1~1 aal. ~i~l~a~r ~a~n~d ~"~qr~a~q"~q"~q"~'~a~r~d~s~. ~1~q4~o~'~s~t~`~i ~t~w~o sin, ~W~, ~'~qj~q"~n~'~.~.~, fly Susan Flood ~c~h 'as, ~n~l~r~a~h~. coal ~qc~.~r~n~b~i~n~v~d~4~ a" ~@~, ~t ~t~w ~0~1~1 ~a~t a" ~d~. ~,~X ~q7~h~2q:~r~8q5~l~-~f ~qn~q"~q"~, ~'~i~, ~I~. ~-I ~-~g~, ~q"~q"~"~'~d ~C~a ~I~t ~q;.~n test ~f~l~u~m ~l~l~c~@~"~@ ~@~,~c till ~C~o~l~.~, ~"~I~qs~i~q"~"~'~. a" ~n~y ~-~A~t~tC~.~, ~U~n~i~l~c~r~s~?~l~y ~1~1 ~n~e~V~t~h~o ~i~s ~@~n~l~ob~y~' Sell. ~0qn~l"~qI~q@~l ~s~,~e~)~A~0 aloe ~l~l~e~@~l~l~qn~i~l~l~l terms ~l~a~.~e 'to", ~s~t~a~t ~i~t ~"~i~"~, ~"~'~o~d ~I ~t~a~x ~"~'~e~,I ~i~n~u= ~l~i~e~a~" ~a~n~d ~q@~,~qt~h~v~qe~qe~v~l` ~1~1 Jac ~v~e~l~)~, ~n ~.~, ~t~A a~"~,~,~, In 'an, ~o~f Lo's ~S~, I ~l~i~q! ~r~o~v~e~l~l~a~u~, ~c-~l~o ~"~t~-~1~1~. Moro fate l~e~r~,~c aloe, ~f~-~r~i~d~a~y~, ~q?~s~h ~n~a~n ad ~n~g ~v~i~o~u~s~c Is ~q;~i~t~% ~r~4~t~o ~a~, ~qe~n~d~w~b ~a~l ~%~av~:~6~, ~b~,~t 'late ~(~e~e~, rat ~co~a~q@~l~l, a ~u~h~z Ion ~"~I~e~l~l ~qt~c~t~t~o~s ~n~, ~p~f~'~s~t ~1~1~1~h~1~qe.~f~s~s~i~e ~o~"~V ~i~a ~u~) ~f~l~"~)~"~n~q@ It ~r~o A, ~6~"~w~N~c~d It ~V of a I ~r~h 1 ~1~1~. ~" ~ha~" ~e color~, ~I~m~i~s at ~q@~q@~V~t~s ~1~4~0 ~it~, Maim ~q"~I~q"~h~a~. ~n~i~qa~"~'~Y ~l~i~qd~,,~W~qe~qd ~'~" on- ~,~a~y -~I~d a~.~1~1~1 his RonaldI~a~"~"~b~"a ~1~"~"~, ~o~f ~h~e ~c~o~u~n~c~; ~a~l~q@ ~o~qi~r ~S~-~I~qm~.~_ ~d~a~c~t and ~'~i~s ~t~i~t he ~r~e Into a ~I~v~a~i~qo~r~;~l ~I~"~I~n~n~e~n~, ILI,~d~l ~qc effects of ~s~e~-~e~l ~"~I~t~e~i In I~M~W~e for ~"~'~c~a~r~c~l ~c~o ~n~a~t~c~aI~w~d ~80qf ~c~c~a~$~@ ~c~o~"~"~s~l~c~n~t~, 'I ~a~@~c~, ~"~i ~'~h~i~t~l~u~p, ~i~l~l~'poor& I ~,~,~, ~,~J~@ Kit ~I~'~v~e~l~'~! ~U~l~e~c~t~i~O~n that~, ~@~i~v~l~l~c~lIa ~c~m ~"~s necessary ~C~o ~S~c~o"~a~" ~q@~I~l~g~' to III~) ~I~d ~a~nd ~U~p~l~t~u ~l~e~, ~,~-~q;~,~C~q2~qr~- the ~i~s if ~i~l~l ~@~q@~,~,~qg~w~i~i~qt~c~qb~c~f~l~l~' ~W~qN ~@~9~1~' ~s~qu~ql~I~p~o~rh ~f ~5~1 ~1~1"~e~qt I ~i ~'~i~s ~-~1~1 be ~i~n- and ~' ~e~t~, ~n~d ~J~ob~s~U~t~O bills ~f~o~r ~m~a~m~o "I f~l ~o~f the ~X~@ ~N~t~,~i~f~i~e ~h-~A~l~i~n~g b~y ~l~e~n~l~a~r (a ~s ~ ~n~i~,~c~i~@~a~y "I ~coup'~S~r opened ~t~h~qo ~h ~p~m~s~@ ~4, ~"~'~P~"~P~l~q@~'~o~n~r~o~n~i~g a~"~t ~'~S~2qS ~I~,~g~i~s~I~a~t~,~'~o~r~'~q@ ~i~n table ~f~o~o~d~%~n~g~, _~qn~,h~~a~l~d ~l~n`~@~"~'~q@~' ~)~0 "arm ~qt~1~v~t ~q@~4~1~e~h ~v~v~r~i~g~r ~4~@~i~q;~q@~4q&~C~m~g~i ~o~k Its ~"~"~qI ~I~,~b~o~m~%~o~l~l~e ~" I~' ~I~qa~a-~q@~2q%,~q",~qI~ql~qt~qi~n~l, ~I~c~q"~'~, said ~1~1~6q@~-~n~, ~e~l~u~d~q!~d~qo~i~l~l~l In ~a~' ~q" ~@ ~f ~m~a~i~v_ ~r~k extant ~M "hell ~s~a~l ~I~,~.~. ~,~i~8q@~4~, (~1~1A ~t~o~@~a ~i~v~,~l~y to ~t~e~g~i~s~l~a~l~l~, ~CU~J~J 0 ~a~r~c ~I~s~e~m~e~n~t ~a~u~c~qe ~'~y ~5~3 ~a~f ~h~o~u~l~d beg", ~t~o of the ~s~u ~l~)~,~s~c 'of ~r~e~c ~g~e ~b~i~t ~4~a~"~V~o~.~,~.~e~, Ing ~t~o hallI tile a ~1~1~:~1 to an 'I ~3~t~t ~a~g 'he ~h~e ~@~1~:~a~l~c ~s~@~a~m~,~.~I~l~. ~u~"~I~s~"~a~l~qt~qv~qe~c ~v~s~r~n~v~c~(~s~a~l~c~s~@ all a cat ~c~l~l~q@~, ~I~t~1~t~w~i~n~g ~w~l~l~g~A~t~r~n, ~i~n each arc ~-~h I ~yr~i~nt~, ~, ~@~, ~i~t ~,3~- ~'~d ~a4~f~i~l studies~Ccurrent by I ~I~L~- ~e~x~p~c~"~I~s~c ~.~a~i~d ~-~c~h~qO~p~h~l~y ~t ~c million ~i~n ~h~a~s~" ... foreign ~u~l~d be ~p~r~o~v ~c~a~s~c~l~) Buy ~'~h~a~m~e~d ~f~o~r A, ~P~4qZ~I~l~a~l~r ~I~?~r~o~6qt~qo~q@ ~h~e ~b ~l~i~m~u~s~l~a ~e~m~e~c~q@ ~a~r~k~l~@~t~'~,~'~,~'~J~a~u~n~, 'be ~n~e~, ~c~h~t~t~s ~I~i ~'~, ~o~t~o ~f~l~o~u~t~l~4~l~o ~h~e funding ~qw ~@~b~A~c~f~c~l ~f~e~c ~r~M~c~l~u'a~n~' A ~u~P ~3~1~1~q2~1~1 ~qa~qi~a~d ~l~, ~l~A~a~T~qW~' ~'b~u~t ~q1~1~' ~e~s~c~c ~c~e~n~V~qw~q@ ~q!~, ~b~a~c~,~q"~,~k ~,~,~d~, ~@ ~, ~, ~,~,~h~p~lo~, Of ~'~1~1 according to~i , Ile ~s~a~i I ~"~q"~q"~'~Y ~qw~v~v~c~e~n ~k~h~c ~P~l~u~d~u~c~,~" ~i~t~s~t~a~r~chI~"~" ~"~a~n~d ~r~.~"~'~, from ~q@~q@~Lhb~a~y ~-~-~l~a~) ~s~" ~u~t Loa ~p~(~c~, ~t~h~c ~c~a~%~qM~f~) ~,~f~L~r ~r~c ~"~i~n~g ~a~n~d ~tv an found In I ~f~u~,~d~l~n~q% ~c~a~n ~P~l~a ~-~y~h~e ~r~y~-~p" ~I~f~u~t~ Poll ~$~4 Among I.. ~h~q4~h~e~l~l ant ~b~c~t~k~, 'love ~P~o~w~e ~I ~,~qo~.~w~l~e~d~a~c fore the ~p~r~o ~a~n~d ~w~, ~b...... ~b~, ,~a~t~o~v ~q@~f~l~n~c~c~l~i~l~o~a byIlulls ~, ~t~v~l~a~f~lft~c ~t~1~o~r~e ~b~e control ~r~a~c~, ~q;~d~c by ~t~h ~ ~u ~i~n~f~o~i~r~i~l~'~A~t~l~o~".~,~h ~a~r~c ~n~e~z~c~s~s~a~t~y Maine ~"~I~n~,~, ~r~e~s~c~a~l~, the ~p~r~o~V~i~6~i~o~"~, ~"~t a ~'~t ~'~n~e~r~s ~I~t ~'~c ~a"~P~,~f~o~p~c~r~l~J ~'~A~t~t~A~c~t~w~i~l~, ~e Gal ~Q ~,~)~o~l~d be ~01~a~I ~$~,~n ~1~1~-~b~.~: ~@ trio% said, ~t~h ~e cons~.~. I for ~p~o~l~lu ~I~t~u~t~, ~t~v~i" ~,~t~Q~t~t~c~c~s I ~o~n~- of a~S~t~r~I~c ~n~g~e~n~l~e~t~a ~p~r ~1~3 ~a~t~i~o~n~, ~o~s,,~a~b~l~i~st~a~n~"~, ~v~e DEP c~qites.~.runoff -~-~i~ ~@~! ~@~~; ~;~1 ~@ ~, ~ a ~~" ~"~2p~ozens of plants discharging a,s~q,~.grow~qing th~'rea~'t~' untreated wastes, reports say ~i~h~i~, ~I~ew~i~s~t~o~wAu~b~u~r~n Water pollution Control A~l~i- ~0 (Diking ~t~o ~p~r~e-~t~r~e~a~t ~-~a~s~t~,~* as require() ~a~u~,~1 mat ~i~i ~v~, r~ep~o~c~t~e~d that ~1~3 o~u~t of 24 ~"~s~ig~i~n~f~ic~a~u~t ~i~n~- to~l~4qvater resources ~1~;~@~o~f~ql~l~e are discharging ~c~a~L~a~t~i~t~s ~i~n~c~ul~s~, heavy ~n~w~t- ~h~e~;~tr~ql~'~a~l users" served by* her plant were in a~t~s and toxic ~O~r~c~i~l~l~i~c~a~l~s in ~m~u~l~q; ~c~i~p~a~l ~w~a~s~t~e~-~w~a~i~t~r ~t ~m~i~a~Lion. A~UG~U~ST~4 (AP~)- Maine's water. ~:~:wa~st~i~e~d~v~o~t~o Maine waters annually, plants, federal reports ~s~a~y~. ~F~i~@~d~or~M law requires that cities ~a~n~d towns ~im~. Is being polluted extensively by run. he said: Ile ~t~s ~(~W~i~e~d annually by plant operators with ~)~N~)~s~v ~l~i~w~i~a~l~0~e~s that range from lines and ~l~e~t~t~e~m of ~o~f~f~fr~o~m, form fields, streets~, parking -According to Dyer, the ~s~o~u~r~e~e~s In- ~t~h~e ~i~6qr~s~'~. Environmental ~P~r~o~t~e~c~t~u~n~i Agency show w~a~r~a~i~n~g ~t~o -~P~ub~l~ic~i~l~y~." Under that provision, d ~LI lots, lugging operations an lawns, ~c~l~u~d~e tons of sulfates and ~itr~a~t~e~s~, that the most common violation is ~t~h~e ~d~i~s~c~l~l~a~r~g~z ~e~l ~n~:~t~m~e~s of serious violators ~are required to be p~u~b- by the state~wate ~f ~a~m ~i ~d~u~s~t~r~i~a~l wastes that 'increase t~h~e cost of operating ~p~l~a~l~l~f~'~s ~6~h~e~d in a daily newspaper. ~ly In in ~A~u~s ~s and ~bu~t do ~q" ~m~w~M~I ~i~n pollution ~at rivers or ~c~o~a~s~i~@~,~l T~h~c~! Portland Water District, which operates ~a~c~c~a~rd~l~i~a~g to a new Stu ~hi~ql~qi~es~h~a~r~qo~qtia~gut~omo~l~i~qf~qf~e ~I~h~n I =.~t of Environmental on. then drift through the ~ai~r and onto water& ~t~r~w~i~n~i~e~n~t plants ~i~n Portland ~a~n~d Westbrook, However~, the reports also ~d~o~r~a~i~rr~i~c~a~t ~oc~c~a~si~o~n~a~t ~v~har~g~m~l industrial users a~l~l extra ~$~3~44,~7~6 during ~c~n~o~c~l~ude~s that ~suchm~i~s- ~t~he ground. ~C~4qX~-~4q:~1~1~q.~1~u~.'~qs contamination ~r~e~p~r~e~- ~T~h~e study says that statewide. ~S~m d~i~@~c~h~arg~c of caustics, acids, ~h~"vY MCI- the 12 months that ended ~l~a~s~iJU~n~e ~f~or Violations of a ~sen~t~s a growing portion of the state's ~h~az~i~rd~o~u~s~-~w~a~s~t~e pollution ~repr~e- toxic c~b~e~t~u~i~ca~6~-~, which ~s~o~r~n~e~t~i~r~uc~s flow requirements. problem and one that ~s"~I~l~t~saminor source of ~c~o~n~t~arn~m~a~- through treatment plains unchanged and pollute ~A~l~o~s~t of ~m~e extra charges were for the excess ~-pollution receiving waters. discharge of wastes ~o~u~l~t use up oxygen in ~t~h~e wale, will be ~h~a~i~rd~e~s~t to stop, ~t~i~on in relation to other sources. For more! serious, the report says, E~(~f~lu~e~nt~s~qm~e~t~i~m~m also ~u ~s is ~t~he plants' ~d~e~h~@ ~w~a~t~c~r during the treatment process, cite balance ~o~f~i~nicr~o~s~e~n~t~r~i~c ~2qM~I~Z~I~s~a~I~l~d nutrients ~@~,~, ~'~P~h~e Portland ~s~ew~a~8~e ~I~r~e~a~t~i~n~e~nt plant treats Environmental specialists say' are ordinary leach field sewage ~a~l~s- 1 ~1~1 ~- d~i~f~f~, that the treatment facilities stop working wastes f~r~o~i~l~n several dozen industrial plants. Most such ~m~l. pollution is I- ~p~o~s~a~f systems, The ~23~0~,(~qW ~s~ep~ti~c~@ ~t~i~f~i~c~i~e~n~t~l~y~. were Involved ~to out ~v~r more violations during the cult to= because it comes from lank leach ~f~i~e~lds~'~a Maine represent ~q7~qhe reports w~qe~qref~qil~qed by the ~ql~q5~qm~qu~qn~q@~qc~qi~qp~qa~ql plan(,, year, according to ~q1~q1~qh~qi~ql~qhp~qi~ql~qe G, ~qI~ql~qo~qs~qs~q5~qo~qn~ql~qi~qc~qau~ql~ql, no specific point. A~qn~qot~qI~qv~qer example is t~qhe l~qar~8qg~qes~qt~q'~qj~qaus~qe of ~qn~qort~q-dr~qi~qn~qk~qa~qbl~qe that treat significant amounts of waste from ~qr~qu~q;,- ~8qj~qu~qal~qi~qty assurance supervisor for the water sewage plant effluent, which con- water in ~qt~qf~qi~qi~q'~2q4~q3~q1~qc~q, the ~qs~qt~qu~2q6~q,~qs~qa~qy~4qi~q, jar ~qi~qn~qdu ~qt~qr~qi~qc~qs~q, Treatment plains are required ~qt~qo ~qi~qs~q(r~qi~qc~qt~q. ~qJ~qa~qin~qs material from 'many ~qs~qou~qme~q@~q:~q-- - it ~qc~6qi~qt~qi~qt~qi road ~q"~qi~qt contamination as ~qm~qa~qi~qn~qi~qt~q"~qs ~qa~qs~qw~qs they r~qe~qc~qt~qi~qve ~qa~qn~qd ~qs~qe~qt lip industrial ~qI~ql~qi~q- said he sent ~qo~qo~qt ~qZ~qO letters of violation, as- that connect to the sewer system. 'a ~qt~0qr~qi~qa~ql~qor health threat, saying ~q1~q3~q5 ~q"pre-~qtr~6qe~0qa~qtme~qn~qt" ~qpr~qogr~qa~qt~qe~qs (~qo~qr ~qh~qar~qn~qif~qa~ql ~q%~qe~qs~qs~qe~qd ~q!~q6~q0 surcharges ~qa~qn~qd ratified five ~qc~qa~qmp~qar~qa~qn~q,~q% Ronald Dyer, a ~qD~qE~qP water quality ~qe Is ate ..known to be c~qo~qn~qt~qa~qm~qi~q- ~6q@~qa~ql ~qs~qu~qb~qM~qa~qn~qc~qe~qs~q. that their violations would be pu~qb~ql~qi~qc~qi~qt~qe~qt~q! if c~qo~qn~qdi- ed d~qu~qe~q-~qI~ql~ql ~qu~q4~qc ~q, ~qp~qyer~qed Sall~q,piles," paid a ~q$~q2~q0,~q0~q0~q) tint ~qt~qi~qvo~qy~qe~qar~qs ago to ~qt~qh~qc lions ~qd~qid not Improve. ~qT~qb~qe ~qf~ql~qo~qh~q-~qp~qt~qti~qn~qt ~00qp~qh~qu~qt~qio~qn study was EPA (or ~qh~qa~qv~qu~ql~, no ~qp~qr~qe treatment = at all ~q:B~qa~qk~qs~qon~qne~qa~qul~qt said the threat of publication be industrial ~q-.~q1~q1 required by federal ~qc~ql~qe~qa~qn~q,~qw~qa~qt~qe~qr Ricardo Cantu~6q! who ~0q@~ql~qr~qe~qc~qt~qs tile ~q(~qI ~qp~qN ~qq~q6~qed and violators promptly improved their d~qis- water and generate obnoxious odors.. laws. Congress also has required grain told the agency in his most recent report ~qc~qh~qa~qr~qf~q@~qc~qh~qs to the plant. but non-point pollution is r~qe~qsp~qo~qn~qsi. states to eradicate ~qn~qi~qln~q-p~qoir~ql~qt Will- that ~4q@~qe still ~q)~qacks time to supervise ~qt~qh~qe program S~qe~qv~qer~qa I P~qor~qt~ql~qa~qN companies were also cited for ~qb~ql~qe for enormous quantities of da~qn- ~qf~qo~qr~qi~q. but has not provided money, adequately, discharging excessive amounts of heavy metals, ~4qPr~qo~qi~qa~qs~q@ substances that art being Dyer said, J~qam~qe~qsJ~qo~0qw~qs,~q.~q4 water quality ~qs~qo~qc~qc~qi~qa~ql~qi~qs~qt with ~qt~qhe Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Some heavy ~qm~qe~4qW~qs ended up being d~qi~qs~qc~qhar~ql~qe~qd mid problem ~qs~qp~qol~qi~qs ~qm~qm~qa~'~qu~q), but t~qh~qe quality of ~qt~qh~qe into ~qC~qa~qS~qc~qo Day~q, ~qb~qu~qt the bulk ~qe~qn~qd up as Part of ~qt~qh~qe ~qpr~qe~q'~qL~qir~qc~qa~qt~qm~qer~qi~ql ~qp~qe~qo~qg~qr~qa~qt~qi~qa is generally improving. ~q@Iu~qdg~qe that is spread ~q(~qi~qn ~qf~qa~qm~qn flat& a~q@ ~q@~q, ~qf~qer~qf~qi~ql~qi~qz~qer Ile said We program reduces ~2qf~2qt cost of waste- ~qW ~q4~qo~qd conditioner~q, water treatment for industrial cities a~qn~qd towns ~qB~qo~qi~qs~qs~qo~qu~qn~qe~qa~qu~ql~qt said ~qc~qor~ql~qi~qe~qr~qs~qt~qr~qa~qt~qi~qo~qn~qs of heavy ~qm~qe~qt~q- and assures that ~qO~qc~qa~qn~qe~qr effluent is ~qd~qi~qs~qc~qh~qa~qr~qt~ql~qe~qk~qi ~qM~qs in ~qil~qt~qe sludge a~qnd in ~qt~qhe effluent discharged into into rivers and coastal waters. Casco Bay are well under ~qt~qhe ~qI~qn~qn~qit~qs state and Vivian ~qM~qa~qt~qki~qvi~qch, pre-treatment coordinator (~qDr federal agencies consider safe. 23 ~0 DEP proposing tougher standards ~qIr- for state rivers AUGUSTA ~6qM~r~q;n~-~6qO~qu state mendous accomplishment" Depart ~ant of a, Pro~. "We have come a long way and ~t~act~ion ~T proposing tougher clean- am committed to go further," he is water standards for sections of 21 said. rivers and several areas off the The DEP~'s study, which encom. ~c~o~e~st, leaving the final determine- passes three-fourths of Maine's ~s~l~a~t~u~r"~. w~e ers, completes a reclassification t~ion up to ~~8q@g th. should Arno. ~0qte rivers I of ~1.~111 surface waters in the state. ~'~ve ~qg receive t e state's highest classifi- The Kennebec ~E~nd Androscoggin cation, says the DEP~, are the upper river basins have been reclassified Portion of the St. John River in within the past year. northern Maine, the upper West In Its latest study, t~qp~o DEP rec. Penobscots' Branch of the Penobscot River near ommends upgrades to-its highest B.~ter State Park, the She~epscot water classification ~qi~t~w~i~lo~ns of River In central coastal Maine and these rivers: theSa River above Little O~s~s~ip~e~e *Upper St. John above Alla~. study reaffirms R~iver.~c~o gash; It they are deemed by law- ~* East Branch of the Penobscot; makers to be ~"out~standin~q re- ~s West Branch of the Penob t warningof sources," those and other rivers above D~ebsconea~g ~Deadwate~r s~c~o would have to be protected in their Ill Pleasant River; natural state. Rivers and coastal ~e West Branch Narrag~uagu~s; tainte~qc-~q3~1 fish","-/,"- waters receiving the highest rating ~e St. George to Union; cannot be dammed or receive ~a~ny : She~ep~scot; discharges. Crooked; By Nancy R~cu~,~,~en A~ni~qub~ng b~o~act~io~n~s where dams ~e Saco above the Little 0~3~a~lpe~e Senior Writer would ~a armed are the West River Branch of the Penobscot River. ~e East and West Branches of the The Penobscot Nation released results Friday of where Gre at Northern Paper Co. P~isc~ataquis. a recently completed study of contaminants found had proposed a major hyd~ro~-el~e~c~- The DEP recommends that these in fish taken from the Penobscot River and the tric dam known as the "Big A." waters receive upgrades to its high. results reaffirm Elie need for pregnant women and Plans were rejected in 198~'. est coastal water quality cla~ss~i~f~ica~. nursing mothers to avoid ~c~at~i~t~ig fish Laken front Five of waterways considered tion: 'he river below Lincoln, said C~l~em~on W. Fay, a pristine In the DEP'~s recommenda- Inner Cob~scook Bay; fisheries biologist. tions are located in ~the rapidly Cutler to Quoddy Head; T~h~e state already has issued an advisory warn- developing southern Maine. ~e Kittery to Isle of Sho~l~d~s. DEP Commissioner Dean Marri. Also, all waters abutting public. Ing people against consuming more than 12 meals ott said the proposals axe "a tre~@ ly owned lands. a year offish such as bass or pickerel caught in ~t~h~e Penobscot River between Lincoln and the P~e~n~o~b~- ~60qs L~bay~.Th~ew~arn~i~n~g, which also applies [outlier major rivers on which paper mills using a bleach process a~r~e located, was issued in 1~9~a~t~; after dioxin ~60qc~u~s found i~n fish tissue. t~~~~qk~oxi~n, a suspected carcinogen, and related con- ~~nn~a~n~t~s such as fu~r~an shouldn't be cun~su~r~n~e~d by pregnant or nursing women~, even in minute amounts. because of the tendency of these sub- stances to concentrate in milk and body fat, Fay said. These ~su~b~b~t~a~i~nc~e~s are discharged in parts p~er ~-~6qr~i~K~t~i~es ~8qP~ee~o~qr~2qd ~qh~- trillion with waste water front paper mills using chlorine bleaching processes. "Not only did suckers contain these high levels ~~ay stressed however, that the levels of ~E~b~ox~i of dioxins, but also relatively high levels of ~PC~B~s found in tile ~1~'~q@o ~lu~n~d~s ~of fish ~a~n~alyz~e~ti in ~t~h~f~'~qe U~2qDgrade ~~~~~l~ob~s~c~o~t~'s study "were at or near analytical d~e- ~(p~o~lYc~hl~o~rina~f~ed ~bip~h~eny~l~s), Fay said. ~~~~t~i~on limits and relatively low when compared to ~'~the Penobscot Nation had a~l~l its fish samples data from other major U.S. river systems r~e~c~eiv. tested for dioxins, fur~a~n~s~, PC~B~s, arsenic, cad. log dioxin discharges." ~l~iliurn, copper, lead, mercury, selenium and zinc. t h E~%~-~o waters Fay said that using risk-assessment criteria set ~T~b~e tests were done a~t an independent laboratory by ~th~e state~'s toxicologist, it appeared that people in North Carolina. With revenue flowing to the state's treasury off by other than pregnant or nursing women safely T~h~e levels of heavy metals found in the fish moreth~an~s~i I million in October, Legislators are going to could consume one meal a ~n~i~o~n~t~h of ~q" fillets appeared to be close to what is found naturally in caught in the Penobscot River below Lincoln. the river, but Fay said the Penobscot Nation did have precious little money to spend on new programs "It is recommended that no one co~n~sur~n~e white note sun~iewh~a~t~t elevated levels of ~iner~cury in bass come January. ~O~ne vital- piece of legislation that suckers," Elie other ~[~W~i analyzed for c~o~l~lu~qmi~. ~t~r~o~m Elie West Branch station and higher levels of lawmakers ~E~nust enact is a reclassification ofMaine rivers r~i~t~s~, Fay said. arsenic i~n ~q" front ~th~e Pas~s~adumk~c~ag area. and coastal waters - the first such effort since 1965. Th~e fish tissue study done by the Penobscot Na- The samples used in the Penobscot's study were T~he recommended water upgrades were prepared by tion complements work done by the Bureau of Water Quality Control in the Department of ~E~a- adult fish. Fay said. The ~l~a s~s were 4 to ~8 years old the Department of Environmental Protection, and cover ~~~~o~f~t~m~e~n~t~a~l Protection. while the white suckers were 12 to 20 years old. by th~re~e-qu~ai~er~s ~o~f the state~'s surface waters. The ~K~enne- Barry Mower, a biologist in the water bureau, looking ~ato~ld~er fish, the ~u~n~aly~si~sshow~s ~t~he~c~u~m~u~- said that as part of a dioxin monitoring program, l~at~iv~e effect of contamination over the life of the bee and Androscoggin river basins have already been ~ ~ ~- ~s ~p ~I~' ~I ~s ~'~I~,~. ~I~q, ~i fi~s~t~i~, but doesn~'t indicate if the same hazards exist. reclassified. Maine, including two o~i~l the Penobscot ~I~tiv~er. ~and~1~I today, he explained. ~D~"~P ~a~m I ~, ~o~f I ~b I The reclassification would increase water quality had tile tissue tested for dioxin. Both the state ~qind the Penobscot Nation plan to standards for sections of 21 Maine rivers. Fresh waters Tile P~qe~qn~qo~qb~qs~qc~qo~qt Nation took samples of bass and continue ~qf~qi~ql~qo~ql~qu~qtu~qr~qing ~qt~qor contaminants in fish, white suckers from ~qsix ~qs~qi~qle~qs~q: one on the East are classified as AA, A, B or C. Rivers classified AA must branch, one on the West Branch and at Climber~q,. Tile ~qPe~qnulu~qb~qc~qo~qt~qs will repeat sampling at some ~S ~q1~qt~qw~qa~qti~qo~ql~ql~qs ~qa~qnd add n~qew sites, Fay said. Future stud. be protected in their natural state, and cannot be ~o~uth Li~qo~qc~qo~ql~qn~q, P~qa~qssadu~qmk~qe~qag and Co~qsfiga~qn. ies a~ql~q@~qu ~qE~qn~qi~qgh~qt look at ~qn~qew contaminants or use dammed or receive any discharges. Upgrades to AA are Bass were selected because they are becoming ~qdi~ql~qf~qe~qr~qe~qn~qt fish species, he said. proposed for sections of 10 rivers, including the Sheep- an increasingly popular fish with anglers and be- cause ~qt~qh~qey are predators, meaning they eat other Mower said that this spring ~qthe~qsLa~qte will Collect scot. ~qa~qtic creatures, Fay said. White suckers were new samples from Elie Penobscot as part of ~qi~qts Coastal waters are classified SA, SB or SC. Like fresh =~qI~qcd because they live on the bottom ~qa~qt the continuing dioxin monitoring program. waters classified AA, coastal SA waters merit t~qhe highest river and become food fur other fish ~qa~qnd wildlife. ~"Sm~qa~ql~qlm~qou~qth bass fillets were found to contain protection. Upgrades to SA are recommended for all low levels (~q1-2 parts per trillion) of dioxin in the coastal waters abutting publicly-owned l~qands,~qsuch as P~a~qs~qs~qadurnkeag and C~qo~qs~qti~qg~qan station areas. a~qnd wildlife refuges, state parks and Nature Conservancy low levels ~q4~q1-8 parts per trillion) of ~qfur~qa~qn at ail holdings. In this area, that includes the Popham Beach stations except Grindstone on the East Branch," area and Reid State Park area. Pay said, A DEP official said the higher water quality standards White suckers were found to contain levels of ~d~k~.~qx~qi~qn and fur~qa~qn that were 10 to 100 times higher are possible, in large part, because ~qofimproved municipal 'hall ~qt~qh~qu~qs~qe found in the bass, particularly t~qh~qe fish and industrial wastewater treatment systems. Upgrading taken at the South Lincoln station. ~qI~qn~qe said. the water quality ratings of rivers and coastal waters will help guarantee that the process of cleaning and pro- tecting Maine's waters continues. 24 ~0 Teamwork sought in Casco Bay cleanup ~0qr, ~)~14~@ By KARIN RO~NNOW ~qJe~., c~o~'~6qne p ~'~qb~l~orr~i In most area communities Staff Writer C~qfat~.~l~o~n~s that they are viol~atin the federal ~ea Water Act by d~i~s~icl~i~ar~gin~g~, Coastal communities luiow Greater Portland's coastal communities bacteria through combined sewer overflows, are being asked to ~n ~le~q, thus violating clean water standards in C~as~qw ~l~o~i~l ~'~2q= ~. Bay. comprehens~iv ~leepl~a~n for on g C~qL~2q:Bg about overflow problems po~llut~ionprob ms. Tbe main culprit Is the combined sewer South Portland ~c~2qle~ad~mi~n~l~st~r~at~o~r~s~@c~d as =o~- ~sy~ste~q-, t~he ~o~ld pipes th they are peh~e~i~id~i~r~ig effort both to a water and sewage that ~0~@~2q=~qj~qj~q@~qng ~q:~r~f~6qn~6q=s coastal com- situation In other area lawsuits and to develop coordinated goals for rainstorms. During he~avy~i~qstorm~s h~q:~qs~2q%~s~qje~qm ~M u ted with pr~ob~- communities: ~.~r ~i~n~t~q@ I ~- -year keeping sewer overflows out of the bay. pours untreated w~astewa C lem~s stemming from sewer over ~9 in South Portland the I I South Portland Assistant City Manager because the volume Is more than the treat- flows at their treatment Plants. old sewage treatment plant, built to ~~f~fre~yJordan says other local officials will be me~nt plant can handle. Ile Portland Water District has handle 5.5 million gallons of asked to participate in the effort along with been sued by three environmental sewage a day, is being oper~at. representatives of the state Department of But local officials believe they shouldn't be ~2qKup~q@~q@~i~qledn~b~qj~@~qa~ll~ie Bo~st~on-b ed Mond capacity. F ased Environmental Protection and the federal blamed, Jordan says, because they have coop. rise t~io ou~ndat~io~n of e~n It rains, some of the com- Environmental Protection Agency. erated all along with federal standards.. . ~ New England. b~ir~ied storm water and sewage Is We're concerned that plans may vary The 1972 Clean Water Act required cities ~'~qne water district Is charged pumped through the treatment among Cumberland County towns on efforts to build treatment plants and paid for 75 ~w~i~t~h~l ~q@~2q@ ~l~l~f~2q=g~bu~ns~afe levels of plant and into the harbor. and some to monitor combined sewer overflow," Jordan percent of the construction costs. 'Me plants feca acter~ia near its of it leaves the sewer system te~@~of~-the~- at the time. wastewater treatment plants in throu~,~q@~qd~I~2 overflow locations. says. ~eause they vary, there may be an were considered ~sta a~rt d~i overlap of information being collected. However, once the treatment plants were ~I~n Portland and Gorham. In tion, much of the 100 ~'~"~I~be best way to reduce that overlap and place, environmental agencies found the It also has been charged with miles of sewer pipes are old, and te greater efficiency would be to deve~- water quality, ~as defined by the Clean Water a~l~low~in w sewage to flow Into are ~ow~ly be~i re~' ~"~' ~and re- Act, C~q. ~2qL~q7~&~o. combined sewer Pis ~a~' to ~_~.~q? ~ng backing ~For~o ma0pl~an in concert with the DFP and U.S. was still not being met~@ Jordan says., ~u~p d w~a~fe~.~2q= EPA so that there's a common understanding overflow. Into th~e ~me. ~of people's of what is acceptable." "So, they looked at combined sewer over- The groups filing the suit want homes. Jordan says South Portland and Portland flow, active when treatment plants aren't able the water district to Install millions ~9 Cape Elizabeth has a 3~-~ye~ar~. officials were alerted to possible coordination to handle the ral~n water and sanitary water," of dollars worth of equipment that old treatment plant that handles problems when they discovered D~EP was he says. ~"Ibey found that periodically sewage would use chlorine to clean the sewage only. However, a ~2qr~rt~ion of having similar conversations about the collect~. treatment operations were violating their dis. bacteria out of Its discharges and the town's sewer lines ow Into ~r~ t~o~n of water qua~l~lty and sedimentation sam- charge ~l~icen~q" by having those points of then remove the chlorine before South Portland, which is contrac. ples in both cities, duplicating effo~r~LL overflow." be says. the water Is released Into the bay. tually responsible for the treat. In addition, -We have not received copies This year, ~EPA ~l~ieg~e~n to consider a national Before the suit was filed. the ment and disposal of that sewage. of any of ~DEPs studies or correspondence as strategy for addressing the overflow problem. DEP had ordered the water district ~e In Falmouth, a new sewer line to what they have found in their analysis," In August the federal agency instructed the to correct problems at Its was- was built this year to resolve the Jordan says. states to submit a plan by January to elf-in t~e tewater treatment plant and to problem of failing septic systems He says the Nov. 2 meeting of the vinous combined sewer overflows. speed up the process of phasing out ~qRollut~i~ng t~he mudflats, Norton parties will be held to share information and combined sewer overflow systems. rook and Mill Creek where they "develop a clear plan to evaluate the problem Here Is a look at the sewer enter Casco ~B~a~y.~qnere Is ~no com- and how to clean it up." bined sewer overflow system. ~0 Cumberland sends Its sewage to Falmouth. o In F= a sewage plant failure last ember dumped at ent~s least 200,000 gallons of sewage At that point, Jordan says, D~EP habilitation of and ~Improvern away, Joni. says, especially with ter onto ~c~l-fl~ats at the ~H~u- began ta~)~dng a closer look at local to the sewer system ~a~n~d treatment ~q"~y~qk~.anw~hile~, Inc., ~of~f~c~l~b ~s~a~y presidential politics-driving the rwaa~seeket River. State officials ~q'~q@~q;un~lt~le~s in order to cope with plant lack of state or na issue. closed the flats immediately, ~L cor t~ional guidelines pressures from the EPA. Interim steps Include continued - and funding - for dealing with "With President ~u stretch of about three m~i~lle~1p~%~1de DEP eventually slapped pro- monitoring of pollution levels and combined sewer overflows puts ~9 upgrading th ~'~n~i~8qgcommen~t~s posed consent decrees on the desks research into new treatment tech- the burden for e sys- madesomest, ~@ comments out by a quarter mile long. of municipal administrators in Ya~r. tems on local taxpayers. water quality in o~ston Harlan d ~0 fly For South Portland, c~le I ~i ~e m uth ~a~nd South Portland, requ~ir- ~n~o~IC ~q@ Manager Jerre R~. Bryant a~n~ing up his promise to ad ~as c e~an ~0 ter, ~4 The Scarborou ~h Sanitary in~o the communities to begin mo~nl~- said the city either had to c~om the issue of water q~u I Is 0 District has a S~-yea~r-o d treatment ~a up and expanding the sewer treatment ~fro~ntl~i~t~u~rmer,~"Jo ~&~n~sa plant, and relatively new sewer ton r~og~r~am~s and. to develop a with the plan or sign the consent plant Is a $20 million proposition. pipes. It has no problems with ~~~~i~6qm~qf~qe for eliminating overflows. decree. For Portland, estimates have -Me camp~&~Jp a~l bet combined sewer overflow. Other communities embraced been put at $ 100 million. focusing the Issues for en en~. South Portl~andre~spo~r~ided to the South Portland's approach and said Deciding who pays for It will tal groups," he adds, ~" d o~se ~0 Westbrook's wastewater Is threat with an aggressive, ~$20 Mil- they would be wflIln to join a come later, Jordan predicts, Me~s~n' ~6qKup~e have become ve ~yve. treated in Portland Water District's lion cleanup proposal including re- cooperative effort to lean ~up t~he while, the Issue Is not going to fade ~a Issue Isn't going to ~g Westbrook plant, making the water district co~rtractual~ly responsible for~lt. town ~a sewer ~qsy~qste ~4~1 Yarmouth's treatment ~I~'~a~qw~. ~I~n August~q, Y frequently allow~a ~t~k~htreated~ sewage to enter the ~qNoy~al River Council received a near its entrance to Casco Bay Ing preliminary during heavy rain be~c~i~u~s~e ~f~i~q"wa~' town s~i~lsewer ter floods the ~i~:~ombi~z~fed sewer to ~$4~5 NO, with overflow system. to the future. h~av~i~n ab ran I we ~t~, ~y~s so ped ~I~n viro~nm an t~h ry ~ac~d o awa Yarmouth's engineers -have de~. ~0 Brunswick' ~term~ined that about I million gal- tewater runs into lons of excess water Is entering the Bay. ~0 Gover~ announce new plans to clean up Casco Bay bor,~h~ By ~ ~~r acting g~pn~t~ Res~s taking Sam. SOUTH PORTLAND Sig- pies this week o~a~ ~~4~ ~ "Ing a stepped up effort to local treatment plants ~2pl~ tect and Improve water q u~ps In Casco Bay ~ps~ ~ Bay, the federal ~ Environmental Protection The samples will be anal ~ ~ ~pL~ment in an attempt to measure of. E~1psl Prote~xistence of bacteria~ Monday joined forces to study lea] compounds and metals. and curtail po~he b~he EPA also hopes to get Thejo~ r~ ~ter this year to stud .A state action plan for Casco Bay the Impact of storm water r~ ~@ announced In February by the L~ a~ptr~ R~Monday's announcement was ~@by~pD-~ McKema~ ted with ~optical~ The I ~Monday yr. spokesman for ~ A~~ Keough, left, ~ ~ w He DEP Co-~ Dean ~t sp~South Wild ~pna~ tal groups, which have sued pol~~ ~~p- ~ Portland Monday. by bringing federal money and luters, as well as the state and ~etermine the nature federal government, for lax regu and extent of pollution Society. d tare om~ "It's about Lime. and welcome ~ lat~t. "But ~ an prom~ b~h~d ~mediate and long- and stricter standards~ to the fight," ~frey of the last range undertakings. The plan is based on the pre Thaler, who repre~ eight years, I remain nt~ ~ Ise that Casco ~ Rockland, the Boston. skeptical. I want to we the mus- ~ast two weeks. r~ ~2p'~~ e ~r~ 'he natural based Conservation Law Fou~h r~1ps~ have tracked discharge ~pld. ~ in July, the ~ that Is under stress but not t~Maine Audubon ~ beyond r~ as sued S~~Ue~Fs~~ "It Is still a salvageable o~ ;the Portland strict, i Yarmouth. They also have been charging that the district had following up on a 19~ ~ like Boston op here, not ~ ~lon to develop plans to ~1pi ~ now Labor~ ~ an ~ reduce Its pol ut~ay. v~ toxic compounds ~ On Monday. Keough and auto levels of DEP Commissioner Dean ~ In the bay. r~ Spring Point They are taking 5~ Lighthouse, with boats bobbing samples at 16 sites that will he ~r nearby, as a back. analyzed for metals such as COP,, ~ drop r their news co~~nd chromium~ ~.~W~ But also visible In that ~~ral regulators Professors Jim Vaughn and James Novotny and student ~ collect water samples Tuesday- bo~ oil r a-also I ~ the ~e ~ ~ ~pu~ d up Inspections and and In's ~ ~ing o~ll' ~ e~rmout~ ~~~nicipal mental ~ber~ Scientists check Wells clam flat pollution r~pa~f ~~sive review of monitor. month ~C~pa~ Ing reports from w~1pf~ PowerCo~ permits. By~ to public clamming. "We're working in cooper- spring and summer. ~tance to corn- Staff Writer ation with (the) state. he said." ~aughn said~ mur~ with industrial ~ll be similar to state tests, but now being ~ will show whether any sites p~rograms. WELLS - Two! microbiologists and ~ much more extensive. have consi~high readings. ~ of oil term~ undergraduate student from the ~ty of Vaughn said ~termine levels If they do, more tests will be conducted in na~~even. Now England have begun taking samples of of three types of bacteria and one virus, which upland areas In an attempt to pinpoint the t~ m~1per from the Wells clam flats In are all associated with human waste and could source of the pollution. EPA officials ~ verity of cause dysentery or hepatitis. '"Me stuff we'll be looking for is sewage that that money for a storm water runoff study will be approved hopes of determining the extent ~ The tests are also sensitive enough to deter- could be coming from runoff from septic sys- In Washington. because they pollution there. mine If the pollution is being caused primarily tems, orcom~ rivers," he said. have designated Casco B~p& On Tuesday, professor Jim Vaughn. Profes- by humans ora~ The five areas being tested are on Drakes =roj ct for EPA's Near sor James Novotny, and undergraduate student ~ill be conducted at different Island Road Upper Landing Road, Lower Wee Raymond Marks took their first high-tide ~pha~during different weather Landing R~e Road and Pope's Creek- ~ ~ con ~en~ pies from five areas of the marsh where the ~ring different seasons. The scientists have already taken two mud ened and impaired water bodies state department of Marine Resources has been ~, both microbiologists, were te~~ hired by the town o~ cost of $5,5~ %-star samples at lowt~ ~ and creates a management plan t~ ~ during heavy reins. Improve conditions. 'We hope our findings will Support ~ng during the fall and winter. The samples gathered Tuesday were taken ~findings," Novotny said, adding hat aughn and Novotny hope the town will ~ weather and at high state tests in recent years have shown such high come up with another ~next annual after several d p~ the flats have been closed town meeting to extend the study through tide. ~0 t~ 7~ ~ ~ d ~t ~~1ph~1~~ ~~ ~pi~pt~pd Pis,,- d~~ Order ~ ~ ~ as ~4 ~ ~ ~ Pot ~4 ~~ the 'a, ~ ~~~~~Ue~pd~s~~~~.~ to d$~ I~2pa ~ ~ act' ~ ~ as, ~~pI~ Of ~ ~I as ~ ~p~p@~p$~ ~ ~,~~ ~~~ c~~pt~ ~ -~ ~1pb~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~"~t~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~e ~~pS ~ ~~A~ ~s~~@ a OR I ~ ~ Poll,, ~ ~~as d "1 ~ a~ ~~ 00~ ~k ark ~ ~ ~ ~1pc~ ~ d ~ ~ I I ~~ ~~p4d ~~ "as ~ the ~p0 ~ It~ ~ ~ ~ -to .~ ~ ~ he c~ ~ ate, ~~pr,~u~ ~p@ ~ ~~p@~ ~ ~ ~~pk if ~ ~ C~ ~ ~, I ~O~ ~ tat, ~11~ ~d ~ I ~ ~ Lit hat Coss ~ ~i~pl~ps~-~ at ~p1~, rill ~1p@,~ ~~ ~ OTC ~, 0~e ~ ~ ~s ~ d~.~ct ~ 111 caught ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~] ~p ~ ~)~2pr Is. ~ ~. ~~p,~ ~ ~ ~p, ~ ~ or aA: ~ ~'~I~i~~~, ~ PIC leg ~ ~t~~p*~ I. What could ~, ~h~ ~ "',I- ~ ~, or ~ ag~~ ~i~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~p1 ~e~ ~,~ps~ ~~ a~ Big Experts bring threat of catastrophic oil spill to ma~ B~Ti~ t~1pt~t~1~ If t~ i~c~lessing, he said ~ M~pl Bureau The ~ill fund established by the dg~ ~ t~ explor~i~t ~ caus they tend to preempt, ~ ~ ~are ~ on," she said. spill, the a ~han augment, state programs. ROCKPORT - A major Oil spill Legislature in 1978 is "a modest sum compared Preliminary investigations indi- ne~l~up Ins ~ptimistic ~ dur~ "can and possibly will happen in the Gulf of Maine,~i~ with the cost of a billion~ill." c~pl ~he gulf could tion~~ ~ the afternoon-long forum came f~ warned Tuesday. D~pi~nt of En~~ ~ple~to maintain an inspections are mandatory on ~he oil industry~~ ~ even fie~ tanker traffic eign vessels no~~ington ~1pA~~ "My second point is that you can Protection's Response ~ than exists now. ~2pn~at frequently enough to ensure that po~ d~~d ~ enough oil exist, to just~pon~ tent~ y. Huntington said that ~1perou~t consequence of the Alaskan oil ~ Steiner, a ~~pro- said Maine~pabilities t~ s~ out of our coastal waters, he said. last spring. theoi~p. is ~ fessor. commercial fisherman and -~s in t~ not a don't meet the challenge." said ~~~affic ~outi~ David S~epartment of ing a new spil~it~ member of ~~ lot can be done," he added. trina ~ior planner of along the coast. a t~pa~ Env~tion's Re- The oil industry's plan emphas~ ~ ~h the catastrophic To prevent a tragedy, the state the state's Coastal Program. the most likely source of a ~ Services, said ~mi~vention, response and re~ ~ spill that b~ska's Prince should establish vessel t~epar- O~erts to speak "But it's a~ky, an we ~~ion fund and will ~xt y~ William Sound in March. ~ the coast and ~ during the forum held at the Sam~need to go about preventing it as ~ established by the Legislature in he said. In Maine, a facility will Steiner advised Maine residents point a civilian authority of experts Resort and titled ~: a Les- we can," Van Duse~ ~ould not begin to cover the built at Portland. one of sever. ~ es to to inspect tankers and to thoroughly son from Alaska for Maine." V Prevention, improved c~ cost of ~ng up a major spill. ~ ~ an n centers under the umbrella of A' ~1pan~eY danger posed ~ investigate chemicals used to break Dusen warned that explor for east coast command center in N~ fic ~loration in Maine up o~ oil and natural gas i~ methods and more resources will a modest sum compared with York, itself one of five ~2p, waters. Additionally, politicians should Maine "could get on lack ~n~ needed to cope successfully -with a the cost of a ~po~pn Spill," spons~ on the ~ Maine's ~aid, should be support the ~~tional time." spill. measures that should ~ he said. th and west coasts. en a~ d bes spill prevention and a realistic plan energy policy. test wells drilled on the men~er strikes, she ~pe the state exercises only ~nd will ~1pi ~1pigate the effects if a disaster A combination of citizen oversight ~~2p81 and 19~ added. ~l~th~ the g~area, and a m~ ~~ and industry responsibility ~ ed no oil, but Van Du~ Commander John McGowan. who ~pt~i~'~" cleanup equipment storage area Establish a task force - a work. to reduce the risks, he ~5 push to develop domestic o~ heads the Coast Guard's Emergency to I ~2p, Maine's best defense ~ ~ ing group on the coast to work with Even though a recognized ~ provided a ~guarantee that group for Maine, con. ~pns~Fe~~ that more can the oil industry and the state," he ~ major spill off the search for petroleum would con- =~l) ~ grams being designed in W~o~ Huntington. C. ocean Dumping 1. What types of materials and approximate quantities (.e.g. sewage sludge, acids, municipal solid waste, dredge spoil, buildinq/construction waste, drilling muds and cuttings) are legally dumped in your State's waters? Please include any maps containing site designations for the above activities. Ocean dumping in Maine waters consists almost entirely of dredged spoils, although the Monhegan Island community has used ocean dumping to dispose of municipal solid waste. A preliminary proposal by the Bureau of Public Lands in an ongoing legislatively-mandated study is for offshore disposal of abandoned ships and boats. No comprehensive records are kept of amounts of material dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers and private contractors. However, it has been estimated that between 1950 and 1989 the Corps of Engineers conducted 98 projects in Maine involving over 4.6 million cubic yards of dredged material. From 1982 to 1989 the Corps dredged 0.7 million cubiQ yards. Of this amount, about a third (231,000 cubic yards) received ocean disposal. Active Army Corps of Engineers disposal sites are located@.. off Rockland, Portland and Cape Arundel. The Portland and Rockland sites are designated by the U.S. EPA as permanent long- term disposal areas. Cape Arundel has interim status but is under consideration for final designation. From 1985 to 1989 the Corps issued the following permits for ocean disposal in Maine waters: Cape Arundel 11 permits 255,000 cubic yards Portland 8 73,000 It 11 Rockland 18 592,000 if Saco Bay 2 253,000 it TOTAL 39 permits 1,173,000 cubic yards Note: The DEP allows disposal of dredged spoils at locations other than the designated sites on a case-by-case basis. 2. What are your State's major problems related to ocean dumping and how are you addressing them.? There is concern that a significant amount of dredged material is dumped haphazardly or short of the approved dump site in violation of disposal permits. There also is public concern about the effect of contaminated dredged materials on marine organisms. In particular, the lobstermen who fish near the Cape Arundel site are concerned about contamination of lobsters (see clippings). 28 3. What state agency has the chief decision-making authority on ocean dumping issues/ Describe the nature of your program's involvement in the EPA process of ocean dump site designation and the COE permit process. What types of problems, if any, have you encountered? The Maine Coastal Program has ongoing responsibility for the review and consistency determinations of dredging projects conducted within the State's coastal boundary. Comments are provided on technical reports and EIS's prepared for or by the Corps of Engineers pursuant to its river and harbor dredging program. The State provided comments on final EPA designation of the Cape Arundel dump site early in the process and is now awaiting the EIS. Permitting of both dredging and dumping of dredged materials is by the DEP's Land Bureau under the State's Natural Resources Protection Act. The Office of Comprehensive Planning of the DECD provides municipalities with technical assistance regarding dredging projects and recently published A Guide to the Regul4tory and Funding Process for Coastal Dredging (November 1989) for that purpose, in cooperation with the SPO. The SPO also is in process of developing an overall dredge management strategy for the State, described in quarterly Coastal Program performance reports. 29 DREDGING PROJECTS IN MAINE, 1950-1989 Corps of Engineers Improvement Maintenance Non-Corps Projects Projects TOTAL Projects Number of Projects 1950-1969 @3 24 57 n.a. 1970-1981 3 23 26 82 1982-1989 4 11 15 n.a. TOTAL 40 58 98 n.a. Number of Cubic Yards 1950-1969 1,449,007 201,806 1,650,813 n.a. 1970-1981 196,354 2,077,871 2,274,225 870,200 1982-1989 143,800 572,767 716,567 n,a, TOTAL 1,789,161 2,852,444 4,6411605 n.a. 30 CORPS OF ENGINEERS LMPROVEMEW DREDGING 1982-1989 PROJECT NAME YEAR/DISPOSAL SITE QUANTITY ANNUAL TOTALS Saco River 1982/upland 73,300 33,300 Corea Harbor 1982/ocean 26,000 Stonington Harbor 1983/ocean 42,500 42,500 Jonesport Harbor 1987/ocean 685000 68)000 143,800 MAINTENANCE DREDGING 1982-1989 PROJECT NAME YEAR/DISPOSAL SITE QUANTITY ANNUAL TOTALS Kennebec River 1982/river 53.%300 53,300 Penobscot River 1984/river 44,625 64@625 Portland Harbor 1984/ocean 20,000 Kennebunk River 1985/ocean 26)156 152,931 Penobscot River 1985/river 443625 Portland Harbor 1985/N& 44,650 Royal River 1985/upland 37)500 Kennebec River 1986/river 57,902 2539459 Royal River 1986/upland 42)626 Rockport Harbor 1988/ocean 10,000 10,000 Wood Island Harbor 1989/ocean 38.%452 38)452 572,767 31 ~0 For Portsmouth Harbor Maine lobstermen question dredge plans YORK, ME - Southern Maine ~p~U~l~dn~S ~4~0 assessment Of C~O~SL It i~s fishermen ~t~o move their ~J~Q-~b~-~A~k~.~. a ~I l~o~b~s~t~e~r~m~e~n are keeping their fingers ~c~s~t~u~n~a~u~a~l to be twice the ~l~e~r~g~i~l~i of ~the sew." said ~L~L Joe ~r~jo~s~s~ed. original 2~5~-mil~e course. Fess~e~n~d~e~n of the ME An ~a~g~qmm~c~n~t h~a~s been worked ou~t that New ~I~~l~a~n~ip~shir~e pays a local matching Marine Patrol. ~-~6q:~.~. -- ~-~q;~4q;~8qD V~l~@~p-~d ~A~q@ should protect their lobster car ~f~q. ~I~ci~n~, st~a~m~u~l~t~h~opr~o~~qj ~,~,o~l~w~,~q.w~,~,u~ld F~I~& ~end~e~n said that it C~.~I~. ~A~q@~d~e~l ~0~, parted off by a ~t~ug and scow transporting have to go along with cost cl~u~u~i~g~e~s~, was apparent tie. hauling Portsmouth Harbor dredging Spoils ~to the Donovan ~:~;~a~i~d~. Line would lead to a Cape A~a~md~e~l disposal site. ~T~h~e dredge contractor, Great Lakes problem with Sea loss. Dredging t~u~kd not~ begun at press tim~i~c. Dredge ~& Dock Co., however. Seemed His officers immediately bu~t l~o~b~s~t~e~r~m~e~n w~e ~c satisfied with an ~o~p~cu ~to considering the hauling route began hearing alternate lug ~r~v~u~w= .~1 with the c~t~w~i~g~e. complaints. ~I~R~X only Army Corps of Engineers, the agency in While cautioning that he did not know about the route but also ~C~@~j~x N~,~d~d~l~k charge of ~t~h~e dredging project. the details of ~t~h~e alternate route, company c~o~nc~em~s about the "As long as he (Lug ~op~e~r~m~or~q) stays spokesman Dave McCarthy ~s~@~q" "We are safety of the material where h~e is supposed to, our Scar should more than willing to work With the corps being ~du~n~ip~e~d~. ~u- ~1. Yug. be okay." said E~ri~c~a Bridges. ~w~i~d ~lo~b~a~c~r~i~ncr~i to ~g~e~t ~t~h~e project going and ~F~c~qm~n~d~c~a set up ~qf~qt Friday night m~o~c~t~i~n~g~, a~n~d ~i~,~,~@~U~.~U~, Bridges, who lobsters out of York disrupt as little as possible." harbor. w~as u~n~c of an estimated 130 McCarthy said dredging will be an included an invitation to ~lub~su~rn~ic~a whose traps were in ~th~e round-the~-clock ~o~f~i~cr~u~t~i~o~n~, with the ~t~ug and the DE~P. pathway originally set for ~qf~qt dredge tug Scow averaging two to three trips ~4 day (~24 In response to and Scow. hours) to the disposal site. ~f~i~s~h~e~t~r~a~c~t~i~'~s questions, ~1~U~. Dredge At Dock Co. is ~D~E~P ~W~W CAMPS officials ~T~h~e $16.6 million Portsmouth Harbor Great Lakes ~D dredging project was ~s~c~qWu~k~d to begin an credited w~i~L~h giving the fast ~D~o~L~i~o~t Of ~t~h~e agreed that ~n~ew samples Sept~. ~1~0~, ~19~89 and Continue until July, ~l~wa~i~n~g date of ~P~o~r~t~s~a~j~o~i~a~h Project and ~t~h~e of the dredge material ~19~qW~. ~i~ou~t~o of die dredge tug and scow. would be tested, According ~to Fran Donovan, the An~ny ~"W~e SOL A l~e~t~&~" from Great Lakes ~F~o~s~s~c~a~t~i~e~n Said. Corps' assistant area engineer of the Rivers ~D~r~e~d~S~i~n~g ~o~n Aug. 2~3 asking alai we notify ~S~u~s~a~n~l~o~qm and Harbors Division, the dredged ~m~u~t~c~ri~als are to be dumped at ~t~h~e Cape An~u~id~el Open Winer Disposal Area located in Maine wa~i~c~ir~s; ~a~t~( ~K~e~n~r~ict~i~o~nkpo~r~t. ~T~h~e 450.~000 cu yds of d~r~o~d~g~e materials an: mostly sand, gravel. and rock. Donovan said. In Carly September~, when ~l~ob~st~er~m~e~n were alerted ~t~o the hauling ~l~a~n~c originally specified by the A~n~ny C~o~T~s. they ~s~ont up a cry. Lobstermen to hold dredging test "it was marching right through out choice fishing grounds," Bridges said. ~qe~qp if At a meeting in York on Friday, ~Scp~j~@ ~8~, ~ByN~EILHARTST~EIN over a h ~ndr~c~4 l~ob~s~w~ime~n voiced strong ~S~U~NWr~it~er ~0q6~-~2q4~,~qy~6q@ Plankton caused seco~j~q@d ~qiiick YORK - Local ~l~ob~s~teme~n~. fed ~p with Opposition ~t~o ~th~e hauling route. They also u waiting questioned ~th~e toxicity of material dredged for test results on a ~P~i~s~c~at~aqu~a River dredging f~l~o~l~o Project. Plan to take their own sediment samples A thick growth of harmless plankton c~q@~.~sed ~P~u~t~u~m~o~u~t~h Harbor~. ~thi~s~7bursd~ay. a second red slick off the southern Maine coast just A ~w~D~e~p~ar~t~m~e~n~t~a~r~E~a~v~i~l~o~a~m~e~n~t~aJ ~T~he dredged materials an being dumped at the week. the state Department of marine ~b~a~u~o~u~r~c~e~s Protection ~(~DE~P) water quality permit was Cape Aru~nd~el ocean disposal area near Ken~nebun~k~. said Monday. issued for ~t~h~e project. but lob~s~i~c~i~m~e~n p~o~r~A~, and the fishermen Are ~con~cer~r~i~L~d that the ~ap~o~l~l~s The oily 20-m~ile slick reported Thur~s~d~ay~ox~tend. ~c~o~n~t in toxic substances that could ~han~n marine life ~ed from Cape Elizabeth to Wells and w~a~s up to two challenged ~d~ie test results that were used ~q8 ~mU~c~uw~id~e~, as a basis for approving ~t~h~e dumping along the coast. ~T~h~e dredging pro ~2qV. Is In Parts- Scientists determined that "dense ~qfr~o~w~t~h of mouth Harbor near the Portsmouth v~al Shipyard. naturally occurring microscopic plants, was the b~oc~a~u~s~e the sampling was done several which has dumped h-~rd~ou~s wastes In the past. years ~a~g~o~. A commercial fishing boat owned by Herb Poole cause, said ~DMR spokesman Marshall Murphy. Donovan ~a~n~i~l lob~s~t~erm~e~n thrashed out of York is scheduled to carry fishermen. divers. state A slick reported Sept. ~1~8 also w~a~s found ~to be ~a~n ~a~h~e~r~n~a~te hauling lane that would take lawmakers and the media ~to the dredging ~o~f~t~e In ~sa~g~ae. it was tested after area fishermen voiced die tug and scow out of Po~n~s~moud~i Harbor ~d~bY to collect the samples, York ~J~ob~s~t~a~n~n~q. Eru~qI~qc~a~^ concern that Pi~f~i~c~ata~qu~a River dred~i~;~J~n~j~@ dropped Bridges said Monday. near K~e~n~n~e~bu~n~k~p~or~t might have contaminate,, the o~n ~L~h~c shipping lan~c. ~T~h~e route travels The samples will be brought to the private Peck water. South of the Isles of Shoals. then ~p~ro~c~"~d~s Environmental Laboratory in Aru~nd~el ~for analysis ~L~ _ ~n~or~d~ic~a~st t~o loran line 9~9(A)-X~-2~590~0~. at a cost of $525, Bridges said. The results should be metals, Garrett said. Just to Play It sale, the D~EP also ~I~b~UL line i~s taken Until it intersect$ IBM available next week. will test a sand /gravel ~s~a~mp~h~: to confirm ~t~he corps' line 996~U-W~-13510~, which leads directly ~T~he Army Corps of Engineers contends that ~90 statement that toxic substances will not adhere to percent of he 3 10,000 cubic yards ~at materials to be that mixture she said, ~I~n the buoy at ~d~i~e Cape A~fu~n~d~el site. dredged is sand or gravel Incapable of tr~a~qgp~i~ng The r~e~sUi~t~s could b~e available by Friday, she Abe ~a~f~t~e~ni~a~t~e route would stay in effect hazardous wastes. Tests showed ~th~e other ~I per. said. ~6~1 Jan. ~1~5~. when the original hauling cent to be silt or clay containing "acceptable" )(,veto Garrett added that, to the beat Of her knowledge, F~ou~L~c would b~e resumed. ~o~f~c~on~t~am~i~n~a~t~ion, thecorp~s said. no Portsmouth Harbor silt or sediment has be.. Fishermen attending a Sept. a meeting With dredged ~to date. ~U~o~o~u~@~a~n said ~d~i~e ul~l~i~er~mu~c haul route corps officials said the ~1~0~-y~e~ar~-~old tests were ~u~n~a~c~. nowhere ~ne~arth~e ~stuff~i~f~i~at~'~s toxic,,, she ~b~"~n approved on an interim basis, c~eptable and demanded now samples be taken. said. Prodded by state and federal lawmaker Ia. th~e corps Bridges acknowledged that the results of the agreed to ~t~h~e tests. fishermen'$ tests won't be available until after the But bridges and other fishermen fear the corps is DEP~'~s tests are in, but said they still Will be useful dragging its feet, and that river silt and not sand is for Purposes o~1c~omp~ar~i~so~n. being dumped at Cape Arund~qe~ql while they wait. She said she wants to make sure the corps didn~q't The ~qc~qorps~q't~qe~qs~qt results were supposed to be ready cheat ~qwid take its ~qb~qhUnP~ql~qe~qs from somewhere also. last Thursday, but the ~qDE~qP did not receive the "I don't trust them, plain and simple," Bridges ~qs~qa~qm~q'P~ql~qes for analysis until l~qa~qs, Friday. ~qT~qhat meow said. "I didn't ~qs~qee them take the tests. ~qHow do we ~qa~qn~qo~q,h~qerw~qe~qek of waiting, Bridges said. know they didn't get it Out ~qO~qf Someone~q's backyard or She said she received a call Friday from Dean a clean beach? Their flu" goal is to get the job done. Marriott, D~qEP commissioner, who told her the period." c~qo~qr~qp~qs~q'~qawn labs were backed up two to three weeks, Fran Donovan, assistant area engineer for the so the samples were brought to ~qDEP ~qfor~qa~qnal~qy~qsi~qs. corps. could not be reached Monday for comment an ~qDeb Garrett, a D~qE~qP spokeswoman. said Monday Bridges' charges or T~qhu~qr~qad~qay~qs sampling by the ,be corps did "a very preliminary ~qr~qu~qn~q-~qt~qh~qr~qo~qu~qg~qh ~q.~q. on fishermen~q. 'he Samples before delivering them to D~qEP for Kathy Gast. Press secretary for Son. William ~qfur~q,~qh~qer~qt~qe~qs~qt~qi~qn~qg~q. Cohen~q, said the Senator wants the dr~qed ins project The ~qDE~qP will check two samples of silt for 10 to stopped until a satisfactory deter~qm~qi~qn~qa~qt~8qf~4qan is made 12 hazardous materials, including ~qPC~qH~qs and heavy an to What's in the ~qU~qP~4q0~q1~q1~q1~q. 32 ~0 Concern Portland, Maine, Press Herald, Monday rises over Concerns about ocean dump sit Arundel By N~T~qM HAR~T~ST~qM section of the Pis~cataqu~a River is so last July be saw two or three cu~sk~i; ~7~7he EPA and the Army Corps of Corps officials, St~a~f~fW~riter close to the Portsmouth Naval Shi. covered with tumors that were Engineers have conducted several stunned to Lear pyard, h~ich has admitted to past within five miles of the tests at the site it~se Inca ~1984~q, dumping Despite assurances that h~e c~lump~i~qn`g of hazardous wastes in the ~2q=unkport dump site. and results showed~"~6q@~. d~j~a~p~s. ~o~f~t~s~m~o~u ~ndel ocean dump site ~ou~r- area. ~Lobstermen and Industry ob- area itself --to e~2qZ~.~1ow conta. ~cu~mpe~c~l rCe~anptleyA~r~u ~es no t~ox~i waste threat The ~lob~stermen voiced concern servers interviewed recently said mination in ~ge=~,ve though it ~ New route for Portsmouth to ~n~e~6qX~1~1 fish and ~c~lobst~ers, local that hazardous wastes might ~accu. they know of no instance of lobster was used the past few years by the ~q"4~0q4yy ~6q@~U~ls dredg~ing~s ~awa~l~i~s final fishermen are still concerned that mulate at the Cape A~m~ndel dump or fish contamination in the Cape harbors," Tomey said.. taken, and ~qthe government approval. Page a. dredge ~i~n terial from Portsmouth site, pointing to future dredging Ax~unde~la~L~rea. ~7be a ~q- t~i~nu to monitor results should be Har~borco~qa ~Id contaminate the area. projects at the shipyard and ~'~"~qn~ere's not much of a co~nta~. the are~i~qF~2qi the effect of the Waugh said ~W ~q1~q1~2_~9 se~wag~e~-polluted Rye Harbor in ~m~inant~ problem there at Cape dumping on the marine env~iron~. Harbor dredgin ~s~. re~si ~u B~yN~EILHAR~TST~E~LN ~V~q;~.~4q:t~b~qtf ~6q@P~-~id NewH~ampshire. Arundel," said David Tomey, a men~t officials said. ~i~n ch to be sand Stan Writer ~p~o ~a, ~. ~8q@~2qhe.. ~at ~2qO~8qthe ~'~7hey're looking at the future," biologist for the Environmental and pieces of center of controversy since the be- said Rep. Neil Rolde, D-York. Protection Agency's Water Quality "For the last few years, we've Torrey said In YORK - Concern about dump- ginning of the Portsmouth Harbor ~'~-~f~bese spoils might be OF, but Bureau in Boston. been going out and looking at the test results to Ing polluted dredge ~spo~ll~s at the dredging project that got underway what happens when they start Dredge material that h~a~s been bottom to see how much material is than those of p Cape Arundel open water d~i last w ek- dredging the Navy Yard?" dumped at the Cape ~Aru~ndel site deposited, where ~it's ~g~o~in~%~, and to showed the levels e river dr~edg~ings am being -1~7hey~'re concerned about what ~r a has led to calls for the c .he ea since the mid~-1970~s has generally make sure it's staying at the site," Portsmouth Hari ~~ new regional dumping site, clum~;~6qt~at the Cape Arundel site, the dump site might do to their consisted of "relatively clean" sand said Jeffrey Waugh, a marine ana- able for ocean du possibly off the New Hampshire and thern Maine lob~stermen livelihood," added David Dow, ex- and gravel, said Tomey. lyst with the Corps of Engineers' ~a~nd federal stand coast' concerned about interference with ecutive director of the L~obster In- "We've done quite a bit of sam- New England division in Waltham. Rep. Nell Rolde, ~D-York, and their traps h~ad to scramble to get stitute at the Un~ive~m~i~tyo~f~?~v~la~l~ne. pling in t~he area of the ~(dredging~) Mass. Lobstermen Sen.Stephen Estes, ~D~.K~itter the original coastal route altered. Herb Poole, who runs a charter projects," and the tests showed the But some ~lob~stermen are reluc~. wa~f~t-and-see att~qi e~qy~, said Saturday they will ask Main~6con- But the l~ob~stermen also de- fishing boat out of York, told Army sites to be "generally low in toxic tant to accept the Corps' won't object to ~ress~on~&~I delegation to file legisla- ~Tr~and~ed that the dredge material be Corps of Engineers officials at a metals, organics and chemicals~,~" he assurances. Arundel dump tion to force ~t~h~e U.S. Army Corps of with Engineers to find another suitable tested for to~i~jc wastes, since that meeting Sept. 8 that during one day said. At the Sept. 8 meeting prove Tomey ri site for dumping. About 10~0~'~s~outhern Maine lob- ~term~n, already upset about plans Cape Arundel picked because of low fishing activi to transport 455,000 cubic yards of Materials dredged fro Ports~- ~~ Arundel, e~4r trough survive ~~t~ Harbor to C~sp~am The Cape Aru~nde~l dump site mental Protection Agency also by ~inc~re than 100 fee% and n It ~q@o~s~i~lble for some dredge ma. w he wa~s designated a regional ocean liked the site's undersea trough dump outside the site itself, Waugh te~r~qW to dissipate, Tomey said. rowing into the d ere shocked Friday to learn t marine u~n~ site is slated to receive spoils disposal area in 19~7~7, along with that runs between two large out- said. ~T~he EPA wants to narrow the Other from other dredging projects over du p sites in South Portland and croppings. "We tried to pick the ~7`he Cape Arundel dump site is dump site so the dre~dg~i~ng~s fall - and lobsters, can t Boston. best site that would contain (the considered 'very small" as far as more in the middle of the trough, he as they occur, he next few years. ut before eyareh~ql Some fear those spoils will be Federal agencies wanted to re- dredg~ings) and not spread It du~qm ~7~q? sites go, Waugh said. sa~l~d~L ~T~le site would be thinner, b full of toxic wastes, and their ~a~c~cu- duce the number of ocean dumping around~,~" he said. e site has a total ~Ac~c~i~u~rnul~a~t~io~n longer as It extends north following The EPA's p ~~ l~~~ion at the Cape Arundel sites then in use in order to monitor ~U Cape Ar~undel actually w~a~s~n It of about ~500,000 cubic yards o~f the path of the trough past Its the dump site I d~~unp, site will threaten southern them more effectively, said Jeffrey Ned again as a dump site until dredge materials~, and Is considered c~l,~q=~,ent boundary. environmental Maine~alobster population ~and Waugh, a marine analyst with the 98S. when It received dredge ma. half full officials said. "it would be an Ideal situation to being prepared In their own livelihoods. Army Corps of Engineers. "The terial from a number of small coas. ~T~he ~qkPA wants to redraw the cor~i~qf~qte the du~m~q@ material so It attempt to ~qch~qan Herb Poole, who runs a charter fewer sites, the better," be said. tal projects, said David Tomey, an dump site's borders to Increase its does~n~ote~s~cape," omey~s~a~id. status from trite fishing boat out of York. reported Ca- A-~nd~el was picked be-_ EPA aquatic b~iologi~s~L holding capacity to 2.S million. The EPA also hopes to save the "It Is envi ~e~~n sting ~t~u~- ~c~a~us~g~j~r-~q@-~-~qm~g-o~r ~1~n~&~1~v~1~u~.~A~y~q-~w~q- Waugh said the Army Corps has cubic yards, T~omey said. marine organisms that cling to the able, ~a~nd there ~~@ c~u~sks with "d~i~sg~u~ spots- for fishing ~m~~frie ~j~L~A~v~a- reco ~a of seven projects whose "it should never have been d~L~, rocky ~I~8q@ "are ~s~usce enough capac~qt ~~r~~ running toward that area. ~~g~w imp.. ~2qm~and ~a to Army Corps spokesmen told the ~a~q5~qp~, Liam ~i~g wig dredg~in~g~s were. dumped at Cape s~ig~nated a circle," he said, referring ~a cor~a~l~l~a~s alpe or sea needs of the area l~bst~rmen that the Cape Arundel MEN~, ~q@ ~t, ~I~T I ~m` ~de~l, five ~in Maine and two In to the dump site's shape. ~anenone. creatures related to jelly. come," Tomey dump site has been used only seven ~Vrpo~1se~andK~e~n~ne~bu~n~X~l~1~Z~qM NewH~ampsh~ire. Ile dump site has a ~500~-~yard fish, To~rney said. make a much b, ~-~2qW~2qr The dump site Is marked by a diameter~. and much of it ties over Worms, Little shrimp and other monitoring." times, and that 10 years of studies ~@~a~u~g~i-~w~u~. show contaminant levels there to ~2~*~9 ~qM y Corps a~nd E~nvir~o~n~- buoy so scows are never off target sloping ledges of rock. which make marine organisms that live to the be low. ~qM~ie same goes for the material to be dredged at Ports- mouth Harbor starting this week, ~~~ys~id. ~@~verthe~l~ess, state marine and ~~v~r~onme~n~t~al officials would New dredgings route likely want to examine the ~c~ont~a- mi~~~~cd fish, said Lt. Joe F~e~s~s~e~n~. e~r~e~d~g~in~g company ~w~as saving YORK - Southern Maine lob~st~erme~n ~a~nd state %ill ~)e~s~.~"n the risk of collision with p~o~qW area. lawmakers are waiting to find out if as, alternate E den ~f the Maine Marine Patrol. money at their expense. the Memorial or Interstate bridges "If the), reopen a site o~ff ~Ne~w transporting dredge spoils to the Cape Aside from their concern about Donovan said they all would connecting Maine ~and New Hamp~- Hampshire it would be ~c~I~8qL~q;~i~qe~r all pollution, some ~l~ob~s~ter~men benefit as taxpayers since the !I A~x~u~nde~l disposal area receives final approval from ~qt 1~6 shire, Connor said. around," ~Ro~lde said. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. L objected on principle to Maine million Portsmouth Harbor project waters being used ~a~i a du nping is funded in part by the federal Donovan insisted there Is no Estes is concerned mostly about The new route, which will take a tugboat and scow ground for another state's Ld~mre~'d~ge government. alternative to the Cape Arundel site future plans to dump spoils with dr~edg~ing~s from Portsmouth H~R~rD~Qr awe fro III ~ ~~. The ~l~D~h~a~t~erme~n also argued that ~a~t present. While another regional dredged near the Portsmouth ~s~a~va~l most lobster t~r~a is, ~w~as agreed to here Fri ~ay by ~~ del di~s- Francis Donovan', assistant area engineer for the r~qe 'How much longer are we Maine ~bar little to gain from a wider dumping area is a good idea to Shipyard at the Cape Arun Corps of Engineers. ~@ this crap from New ~-ping to take ~k~i~a~m~p~- Portsmouth Harbor since no com~. consider, he said, It could take ~1~5 1 area. Once ~qW of the original shire?" asked lob~s~terman William m~e~rc~i~al ships dock on the Maine years to become a reality. ~6qr~.~q"~I~t~s~mouth Harbor project, t~he But Donovan told a meeting of local lob~uter~men ~qs~; Bridges of York. "We're tired of side of the P~i~sc~at~aqu~a ~I~tiver, h~i~.p~y~a~rd dredging was postponed that he would have to run the agreement by his I ff ~1~. a cesspool of ~qS superiors in Washington today. ~7~be new route i~qs taking everybody ~6 stu ~. Ernest Connor, head of the N.H. making for two to three years because of a Francis Donovan, assistant area State Port Authority, disagreed, the Maine coast and these bureau- lack of fund& ~ne~ar~ly.twice as long as the original route up the coast, ~qd e~g~~e~e~e~for the Army Corps, said saying both Maine and Ne~w Ha~m~p~- crats are worried about making and will add considerably to the dredging project~q's Cape Arund~e~t was chosen to shire will benefit from the dredging another site elsewhere," charged ~7~le ~shipy~w~i~&~cu~qin~ar~i~l~l cost, he said. ~e Is work. ~.~. It's a wait-an ~~ce~~ the Portsmouth Harbor project~. Bridges. "We're worried about ing with ~s~t~ht~p and ~fede.~qT ~n Iron. ~E d-~see situation," Seri. Stephen dr~d~ings because it's the closest of A deep water, emergency turn. heavy metals and chemicals~." mental officials to ~id~e~n~te~ify and s~tes~, ~D~@K~i~t~tery, said Saturday. ~If ~T~he deal falls ~qn three regional ocean dumping sites ~Ing and holding ~a~re~aw~il~l be created clean up 13 hazardous waste sites. through, he said, "we could be back to square one." approved by the Environmental to guard against oil tankers running Estes and ~Ro~ld~e said they will If t~he route has to be changed again, Donovan said Protection Agency. "The others are aground and spilling their load contact Rep. Joseph Brennan, D. ~"~7~b~e~r~e~'~s a real environmental he would retu~r~n to York to work out another located offP~or~Uand and Boston. which would affect both states, I~qn~qe Maine, Sen. George Mitchell, D- problem right off ~Hender~E~on'~s arrangement with the ~lob~s~ter~me~n. Otherwise the Maine, and Sen. William Cohen, Point" where the tire- alternate route will remain In effect until Jan. 1~5~, at The decision to dump at Cape said. ~dg~i~ng will take Arundel Instead of in the Massa- Also, large vessels will have R-~Ma~in~e, asking that they file ~le place, Estes said. ~-~qMBt'~s ~o~ne of the which time the tug and scow will revert to the ~qC chusetts Bay shaved ~$1.~5 million off greater maneuverability, which l~at~i~on creating a ~new ocean ~q9~q:~- two major bad areas." original coastal route. ~qre the Portsmouth Harbor project's price tag, Donovan said. ~~~~s~ter~n~ien objected that the ~0 Portland, Maine, Press Herald, Saturday. October 7,1989 Corns: No new dred~8qcre test needed yet been dredged. Douglas said. ~T~he results. she said, validate the corps' Reports contaminants _~qM~e ~DE~P claimed the. is ~i~t "potential for cont~a- decad~c -old tests. mina~f~ion" in dredgings from some silty areas, and Local lo~b~st~ermen are not satisfied with any of the are at acceptable levels ordered Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. - which is test results because they don't believe the corps took doing the job for the Army Corps and the s~Ute of New Its samples from the dredging site. ~T~he corps also pro- Hampshire - not to dredge those areas until new vided the samples tested by the independent lab and ByNEILHART~S~qMN tests are conducted. The Agency gave the corps until DEP~. Staff Writer the end of the month. On Friday, lobs~terman Erica Bridges and others ~qne Army Corps of Engineers sees no reason to M Ine's congressional delegation Issued a state. collected their own samples, and will deliver them nduct new tests for contaminants in Pisca~ta~qua ment Tuesday backing the DER to a private lab in A~runde~l for testing. Results are "Although special handling of the material Is not expected in about two weeks, Bridges said. R ver sediment, despite an order to do so by the state justified by the test results, the corps will, through ~T~he lob~st~erm~en tried last week to take harbor De~4qc~me~n~t of Environmental Protection. ~.samples. They were chased off by the head of the New ~c~o e corps Friday released the results of tests on the normal scheduling of work, dredge the fine grain Hampshire State Port Authority, who said their divers samples taken from the river In September. ~T~hey material early enough in the project to ensure its show contaminant levels to be ~%~%~rithin acceptable ~c~ov rage at the disposal site by come grain ma- were endangered by a swift undertow that would have terials," Wilson said in his cover letter. carried them into the path of the dredging equipment. limits for open-water disposal. "This methodology should provide assurance of the On Friday, the lobstermen walked out on the ve ~"Theresu~l~t continue to show that this material is hi degree of environmental protection," he said. Kittery mudf~lats as far as they could go, then used a f~t~@r ocean disposal under both fed- ry suitable s ~2qq~eheArmy Corps was content to rely on I 0-year~-old dinghy to get within 100 yards of the dredging project, eral and state guidelines. Therefore no further testing tests, but agreed to take new samples at the urging of Bridges said. is deemed to be necessary," wrote Col. Daniel Wil- fishermen and state and local officials. son, head of the Army Corps' New England Division, "I think we got some choice samples," she said. Her in a cover ~lett~e accompanying Friday's test results. The corps tested for toxic heavy metals, PCBs, lobsterm~a~n husband. Will, devised a too] used to Area lob~st ~rme~n have voiced concern since Labor PAH~s~, organic carbons, pesticides, oil and grease, and collect t~h~e samples: a 3~-inch-wide galvanized steel Day that ~P~o~2qMouth Harbor river dredgings are all were found to be within acceptable limits for pipe connected to a ~2~0-~toot-~l~on~g aluminum pole, polluted by toxic wastes from nearby Portsmouth disposal at sea, corps spokeswoman Sue Douglas said Like last week, project workers took an intense Naval Shipyard, and might pose a threat to coastal Frid~a~v. Interest in t~he l~o~bstermen's activities, Bridges said. marine life. The corps' findings were similar to those released "They kept sending a truck to check us out," she said. On Wednesday, the DEP modified its order on the earlier this week by the DEP. and to those of Eastern "They're definitely scared of something." dumping of dredg~i~n~gs off K~enn~ebunkport, requiring Analytical Associates of Brooklyn. Conn., an indepen. This time, however, no move was made to stop the additional sampling in areas of the river t~hat have not dent laboratory under contract to the Army Corps, lobsterm~en from collecting their own samples. ~t~o~u~, a ~J~e~s $cc, Go Sao~? ~V~k~c~s ~i~i,~a~p ~O~t ~4~1 ~J~)~4qV ~,~0~q0 ~s~s ~4 ~C ~q@~Pc~qk ~-~qm~, ~0~" ~V~A~b ~s~'~T~c~0,~. Oro ~%~)~@~M ~V~u~e Or~% Cave ~I,~0~4~q@~j ~@~a~i~, Colo Ise IVI ~.~-~q~, ~1~1~, ~v~o~l ~Y to, ~5~1~?~0~@~1~6 ~qn~q;~q@ ~:~,~,~,~, ~- coo owl" ~'~.~6~-~b~o~, a ~v~V ~t~l~@ ~.~q"~qA~w ~"~M~I ~q" 'A ~O~A ~qwr~% ~t~s ~G~W~' cc ~"~0~C~, ~t~o~t ~U~l~- ~C~D~T~V~S ~@~,~V~c ~O~U~, -~o~c ~,~_~,~o~b ~q, ~O~-~8qW ~,~-~, ~5 ~V~q0~5~q0~0 ~1~"~d ~S~c~O ~1~0~S ~qg~m~o~l~a~f~,~@~X ~V~@~o Cis ~T~r~c ~0~1 ~*~X ~q@~0q@ ~% ~0~1~4 ~. ~- ~G~i~d~s ~qo~s ~Y ~- ~V~C~, ~o~J~0~qi~qW~t~0~,~8q%~4~$~r~~,~@~u~Ab~1 a ~e~c~t ~@~qA~- ~j ~i~x~t~e ~?~,~q0~00~v~o ~-~-~qm~g~, ~o~y~d~'~1~0~%~r ~C~-~V~, ~"~S~e~s ~%~4qW~P~q!~2qS ~4q0~1~P~1~9~, ~"~4~0~1 ~t Of ~%~J~t ~C~D 0~1~0~3~6 ~0~4 ~V~q5~6q@ -a ~1,~0~0 ~qO~qi~qO~r~4q@~qw~-~* lot ~00 ~6~q6~% ~6 ~q;~0~4~s~l ~'~4~4q0~0~5 ~b~o~p~t ~(~c~)~(~4~1~S ~.~0,~qi~A~0qo~, ~'~s~. ~*~V~y~- ~i~f~o~o ~v~a~qa~l~u~s ~qo~l~t ~i~s~s~%~xe~d ~1~.O~a ~qW~0~0 ~.~1~,~1~3~s~v ~'~i~'~l~o~o~t~o~o ~o~0~b~,~5~q0 ~W~s~w ~0~1~A ~'~0~q"~@~l~"o- ~t~o~o ~V~-~D ~U~S~.~1~1~0~q@~c tot ~*~,~$~A~r~s ~f~j~qj~q@~2q@ up I~'~o~qo ~O~u~t ~t~o ~s~c~r`~9 ~V~V~P ~-~'~0~q& ~d~&~0~O~D~U Ise ~q0~e~, ~0~qa~2qn~q@~6q@ ~s~o~o~@~s ~a~'~d ~o~t ~n~'~* eve, ~9~,~V~W~A~M ~qV~X~,~'~I~S ~I~c~s~"~P~o ~o~t ~0~, ~Z~a ~1~3~5~qe Olt ~.~0 ~N~U boll ~f~t~a~@~s ~% ~t ~1~0 ~O~O~A ~'~0~% Tot ~Q~D ~V~a~l~,~q@~. ~,,~@ ~%~5 r ~V~@ ~q;~q;~q@~4q@ mote ~, ~c ~4-~4~1~,~0~c~"~.~. ~D~"~, ~(~0~q0~6 ~,~O~,~V~, ~@~,~a~t ~q;~V~V~Y~- ~6 ~&~S~V~I~I~, ~4~0~0~' ~2~4qA ~%~p ~Vro~qw~"~q! ~4~,~q0~9~0 ~'~4~6~0~0 ~o~t ~0~4 ~X~"~A~s Out ' ~o~m~- ~@~O~e up "A ~qW ~t~o~v ~$~Y~,~o~V~1~s~V ~L~"~t ~1~5 ~4q"~a~c~d ~10~, ~0qw~@~lo~u~s sop ~1~,~1~, ~O~t ~2qP we ~,~0qZ ... ~,~ ~v~ol, ~, ~O~t ~0~"~"~t sea, ~%~e~s ~, ~,~"~O~e~t~o ~@~qp~c CA ~s ~0~1~C ~&~%~-~,~,~%~0~M~.~6~N~C MCA- ITO,` ~w~b~s~i~r~s~A~, ~q@~q6~,~-~s ~0~1~6~0~. ~0~5~0~1~V ~,~X~c~s~, so ~@~b~s~% ~'~t ~i~@~o Col, ~I~p~t 'Low') ~O~Z~4~, ~'~P~1~.~0 ~t~o~r~l ~%~P use ~*~4 $~'~,~1~V ~0~"~qW I ~, 'a ~q'~qO~u~f~o~o ~i~x~t~e ~.~0~2~P ~i, of ~qr ~q5~q2~q1~1~0 ~q@~9 of% ~w~o ~q2~qr~q, ~qo~qt ~q0~q,~q4~q1 boa, ~q-~q,~q3~qP~qV~q1 ~q0~q3~qV~qA~q. ~q0~q1~q1~q0~q' ~qJ~qO~qI~qD~qS~qV~16qr~qe~qt' ~q'~q0~04q0~q, ~qV~qO~qT~qO ~qS~qC~q0~qc~q1~q_6~q-~q,~q2~q,~q0~q0~qv~qx~qX~q' ~q. ~qU~qO~qD~qO ~qt~qi~qe~qc~qt~qU~q0~q. ~qU~qy~qs ~q5~q@~q,~qs,~qq~q@~q%~qP~ql~qb sox. ~q'~q0~q" ~q%~q1 ~q6~qs~q?~qo 0~12q4~q,~96q@~96q@~ql ~q2~qA ~q,~q,~04qA~qi~qr ~qo~qr~q, ~q'~qb~qo ~qO~qV~q4~q0~qi~q"~q0~00q0 ~q?~qi~q@~qc~ql ~q%~4q0~q0~q1 ~qI~q)D~qX~qc~q@~qO' ~q1~q?~q.~qN ~q'~q2~q1~q0~q1 Coto IV ~qU~qC~qA~16qO~qS ~q'~q1~q0~qs Cave~q, ~q0~q1~q4~q6 ~q0~q, ~qa~qp~0qt~6q!~8q@~68q@ ~q-~q'~qs ~q0~q1~q2~q,~q4 ~qa~ql ~08qw~qw~qr ~q- ~qo~qd ~qD~qo~qn~qo ~q0~q*~q0 ~qr~qo~qj~qe~qc~qt ~qV~qJ~q%~qo~qt ~qw~6q0~qt~qo ~qb~q2~q4 ~q0~q0~qW ~q'~qu~q.~q)~qe~qr~q, ~q0~q. ~q, ~q6,~q6~2qj~qi~qt~qt~qv~q, ~qI~qP ~q, ~qo~qn~ql~qi ~q4 ~q%~qc~qs 'bit to( ~q@~q5~qs~qo~qc~qd a ~q6~q.~q0~04q0~q4 ~qV~q,~q,~qr~qs ~q-~q.~q@~qX~qQ ~qs~q3~qm~qv ~q"~q4~q1 ~qe~qs ~qJ~q@~qV~qr~q, ~qc~qa ~qO~qO~qV a~qX~qe~q'~qV~qe~qt~qs I ~qo~qp ~q-~q*~qY~04q0~q1 ~q-~qf~qh~qt ~q- ~qv~qo~q,~q@~q, ~0qK~q1~q0~8q0~q0~qc NO ~q- ~q'~q0~8q0~6qo~qa~ql ~qC~qs~q% ~qL~qX~qX~qA ~qto~qf ~qc~qo~qr~qg~q, ~6q0~q1~q1~q0~q0~qc~qr~q%~q0 ~qo~q5~qs~qo ~qV~q@~q4` ~qV~qM~q1 ~ql~qA~qi~qo -Tye' ~qv~qo~ql ~qv~qi~qc I ~qs~qo~q"~qI~qy~qV~0q0~q1~q, ~.~08q0 ~qr~q, ~q.~q.~q4~q1~q0 ~qI~4q&~qI~qe~qn~q' ~q' A~q5~q0~q- to ~q?Iwo~q, ~q0~q, ~qV~qC~q-~q0~q1~q"~qi~q'~ql~qa ~q6~q2~qN (to 34 D. Coastal Hazards 1. Which of the following hazards are of concern to your state? For each indicated hazard, briefly describe the magnitude of the problem and the specific areas of concern. _X_ Coastal flooding and storm surge _X_ Coastal erosion (short and long term) _X Sea level rise X_ Subsidence Tsunamis Earthquakes Other (Identify) Coastal flooding and storm surge Coastal flooding and property damage are directly related to the combined effects of high tides and storm surge. Astronomically enhanced tides can raise ocean levels 3-4 feet above mean high water. Storms, such as winter northeasters, can cause surges of 1-3 feet. The combined effects of exceptional tides and storm surge can raise water levels 5 feet or more along the coast a few times each century. Coastal flooding of 5 feet in February 1978 caused about $2 million in property damages in York County alone. Coastal erosion Cshort and long term) Coastal erosion rates, both short and long term, are not well known for the various coastal environments in Maine. Coastal bluffs have been known to retreat 6 feet per year over. the short term. Slumping and landsliding (such as the 1973 Rockland slide) may affect the long-term rates of bluff retreAt% Detailed profiles of Maine's beaches are not available for determining erosion rates and a program is desperately needed t6 determine this hazard's severity. Erosion of dunes in 1978 storms has left a scar in many locations which has not healed in the last decade. These and other general observations suggest that in the long term Maine's coastal dunes and beaches are retreating. Erosion presently threatens coastal developments and, as it progresses, more areas will become adversely affected. Sea level rise Sea level has risen in Maine at a rate of about 1 foot per century, as measured by tide stations along the coast. if present trends continue, a sea level rise of 10 inches is expected by the year 2090. The Maine Geological Survey estimates (using National Academy of Sciences models) that the combined effects of coastal sinking and global warming may cause sea levels to rise 20 to 50 inches by the year 2090. sea level rise will allow flooding and erosion to encroach on areas that are not subject to coastal hazards today. 35 Subsidence Subsidence is recorded in the sea level rise trend mentioned above. Subsidence may account for about half the rate of local relative sea level rise. The remaining amount of sea level rise is probably due to global sea level changes. The coastal hazards related to subsidence are the same as those with sea level rise. Subsidence is expected to continue even if global sea levels cease to rise. 2. Which of the following traditional techniques is the state currently using to address each of the above indicated hazards? Briefly describe how the technique is used and assess its effectiveness. _X Public education X_ Technical assistance to residents/businesses _X_ Research on cause/effect/response _X_ State or local planning (including disaster planning) _X Policy development X Structural response (beach replenishment, bulkheads) _X_ Restrictions on development or use of areas Land/structure acquisition Other (explain) Each of the techniques checked is being used to one degree or another with regard to coastal flooding and storm surge, coastal erosion (short and long term), sea level rise and land subsidence. In the area of regulation, reflecting an assumed sea-level rise of 3 feet over 100 years, the State's Sand Dune Rules were recently amended to: (a) prohibit construction in the V-zone on or seaward of a frontal dune; (b) require one-foot' '' freeboard for all single family residential structures in areas within reach of the 500-year flood; (c) create a four-foot freeboard above the 100 year flood elevation for multifamily" dwellings; and (d) require removal of any structure encroached" on by a wetland for over six months. Hazard areas in the coastal zone were mapped and incorporated into the Sand Dune Rules as best available information for the location of frontal dunes, back dunes and flood hazard zones, unless an on-site survey indicates otherwise. These maps, prepared with Coastal Program support, provide an important basis for both technical assistance to residents/businesses and public education. Local shoreland zoning ordinances under Maine's Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law provide additional restrictions on the development and use of flood plains and other hazard areas. Recent changes in the Law include an increase in the minimum setback for coastal development in certain areas. A new set of mandatory more stringent guidelines for local ordinances prepared by the DEP is currently under review for adoption by i@he Board of Environmental Protection. 36 Technical assistance with regard to coastal hazards is routinely provided by the DEP Land Bureau, the Maine Geological Survey (which prepared the Sand Dune Hazard Maps), the DECD office of Comprehensive Planning through its Coastal Planning and Flood Plain Management programs, and the Coastal Regional Councils. Research on coastal hazards is a key function of the Maine Geological Survey. The State prepared a model local floodplain ordinance including minimum statutory provisions. Most towns have adopted an ordinance based on the model, which contains two significant additions to federally mandated requirements: a provision that all new or significantly improved structures be elevated at least one-foot above the base flood elevation, and procedures that place the burden for compliance on the applicant. A two-step procedure is required, under which construction is stopped at the first floor until a surveyor verifies the elevation. This eliminates the risk of a structure being completed without the required freeboard. The first "Statewide Hazard Mitigation Plan" was completed in December 1987. The plan discusses hurricanes and other coastal hazards. It includes an action plan for addressing coastal hazards, identifies areas in need of improved management, and contains draft language for legislative changes to address the management issues identified. The plan also recommends the use of the sea, lake and overland surge (SLOSH) for hurricanes. Public Law 794 of 1986, An Act to Enhance the Sound Use and Management of Maine's Coastal Resources, restricts development in flood risk areas and provides authority to the State to consider sea level rise and its implications in making management decisions: one of the nine coastal management policies adopted- in PL 794 is to "discourage growth and new development in coas,@al. areas where, because of coastal storms, flooding, landslides,'-,.,0!r.., sea-level rise, it is hazardous to human health and safety.111.,.'.1 Executive Order 3FY 86/87 required state agencies to align their activities and prepare plans to implement the nine coastal policies. Finally, with regard to structural measures, the Board of Environmental Protection has adopted a policy against construction of new bulkheads and seawalls. On the other hand beach nourishment, though little used, is considered an acceptable technique, provided that sand budgets, sediment compatibility, public acceptability and costs are thoroughly investigated. 3. What innovative actions are the state undertaking to address the hazards mentioned above, e.g. new studies, policies, financial incentives/disincentives. It is difficult to make a sharp distinction betw@en "traditional" and "innovative," inasmuch as Maine has been among the first states to respo,nd to sea level rise with legislativp 37 changes, and a number of the techniques outlined above might be considered innovative use of traditional techniques. Chapter 21 of Public Law 794 of 1986 referred to above established a State Coastal Barriers Resources System paralleling the federal system created under the U.S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. similarly to the federal COBRA, the State law prohibits State expenditures or financial assistance for development activities within the coastal barrier resource system. 4. Which of the following levels of coordination is the state involved in or promoting to address the above identified hazards? Describe the administrative/organizational mechanisms to accomplish this coordination, and the role of the Coastal Management Program. Federal - State Interstate Intrastate State Local CZMP Floodplain managers Other (explain) The primary means of federal-State coordination include Federal Consistency under the CZMA and a cooperative relationship between the DECD's Flood Plain Management Program and FERC. ??? State-Local coordination occurs as described above through DEP oversight of local shoreland zoning administration, through the DECD's local technical assistance and Flood Plain Management Programs, and through technical assistance by the coastal regional councils. 38 `4 A 14 @@7 WO' "I @q j,4 AP Fit. ph"* Hurricane Hugo ripped the root off this waterfront home In Charleston, S.C., A 1978 blizzard toppled this Saco beach and sent it leacting toward the water. house, which sat on Its corner for mouths. Hugo brings f'o"' c*us on beach building ByANDREWMcCLURZ "It's very frtsibltebth t houses that had been whipped across the Atlantic. Staff Writer destroyed in no ei@eplaced,"WeLls Code During that storm, the highest tide ever Enforcement Officer Michael Polakewich said. recorded in Portland washed ashore at more When a storm the caliber of Hurricane One of the issues brought to light by Hugo's than 14 feet. The waves that followed returned Hugo hits the southern Maine coast - and devastating effect on the South Carolina coast to the sea with dozens of homes and cottages, a state officials say it's Inevitable - state is whether that state's laws regulating coastal Kennebunk Beach I= and the Old Orchard regulation, will limit the number of destroyed construction and reconstruction are to be Reach pier. home. that can be replaced. Laken seriously. . "There must be another storm," Joseph About 60 homes along the coast south of Maine officials, who have written similar Kelley, a marine geologist with the Depart. Portland are in areas where state law would regulations. are watching South Carolina clo- ment of Conservation, said. 'We will suffer as prohibit their replacement If they washed sely to see whether its laws stand the test of we did in 1978 and there will be more damage. away inaviolent storm. The fate of hundreds public pressure. U'78 were to reoccur, and it must, we would of other homes would be in question if they. While it is unlikely that a hurricane would lose more .. . than we did. There's more too, were destroyed by waves and tides. hit the Maine coast with the ferocity that Hugo Invested than there was." If the storm proved fierce enough to wash ripped South Carolina, winter northeaster While states such as Maine and South away houses in Higgins Beach in Scarborough, storms can cause similar damage. Carolina are willing to let standing structures many would be gone for good. It It washed When a two-day blizzard hit New England remain, both have adopted laws limiting con. - I away houses along Moody Beach in Wells, in 1978. houses along the coast in York County chances are the state would rule the area was sustained $16 million in damage because of too dangerous to rebuild on. high seas generated by the northeast wind that sullclian allowed ln&gastal areas ruscepti. Higgins Beach in Scarborough, and the rest Hugo or the blizzard of 1978 would wash along and washes some of the houses away, they also have regulations that are spread along the York County coast. inland over the dunes and into the marshy that the construction will not be replaced. Including Ocean Park, Fortune Rock and 10 areasiust beyond the beach. "The whole idea of these laws, it the reconstruction of houses In such areas on Drake's Island. Construction along those dunes effecti. house is destroyed, it Is evidence it is in an the-jare :Ipificantly damaged by storms. Much of the oceanfront property on vely erects a blockade betwe n the rough unsuitable area," according to Daniel Belk. Win Caroli.... @@,sdpoke,woman for South Moody Beach and other parts of the coast Is seas and the low areas. Whenea storm hits. nap, associate. professor of feoloiud as council. said state has in another zone that would allow recon. the fury of the waves cannot disperse over marine biology at the VnIvers ty of e. created a special zone that stretches from struction because it is protected by a sea the marshes and is Instead concentrated on "You can't keep rebuildipg in these areas." the ocean to an area 20 feet behind the sand wall. the beach, eroding away the send, Witherill There am other ruies and ;@egulationa dunes, If a building in that zone sustains But Kelley added that If a storm tore said. controlling replaciiinefit of beach houses. d@ it@,e to two-thirds of the structure or down the sea wall and leveled the houses. Kelly pointed to Wells Beach and Surf Most of the buiMugs not directly on the ..% ,cannot be rebuilt, she said. the property likely would be recategorized Street in Saco as examples of beach areas beach could be replaced if damaged by a There is no estimate yet how many and reconstruction would not be allowed. that am washing away, probably because of storm, but they would have to meet strin. houses in th 5 so called ",dead zone" were . the esenreofse walls. razed by Hugo, but their owners already 'You don't rebuild' ge a gent federal guidelines aimed at preventing construction also acts as a blockade aamage when future storms arrive. have marshaled forces and plan a legal "In a sense, It doesn't matter what flood =nting sand in the dunes-and marshes challenge of the law. zone you're in," Dickson said. "if you were d the houses from mi Iting back Maine watches S.C. damaged 50 percent ormore.. . by an ocean toward the ocean to replenish Ne beaches. Financial feasibility storm, then you don't rebuild." "It's a classic man-versus-nature con- Another control that probably would 'Mat challenge is of special Interest to State environmental officials say the frontation,"Witherill said. "You got a beach limit reconartiction in a beach area Is Maine's coastal officials. South Carolina's laws regulating beach construction are resources threat by people building walls. whether it would be economically feasible. laws were rly based on similar rules aimed at preserving what beach is.left along Ultimately those wails accelerate erosion "The DEP may allow It. the local ordin. dy1V in Me Last ySeoaur'and he legal the coast. from the beach." ance may allow It, but (the federal govern. ch le ile posed In the h could occur Ironically, people who build bythe ocean men9 Is not ging to Insure you and the here here similar disaster. so they can be close to the beach are Worldng with nature banks not gu I a @fi to lend you the money," Maine's laws are based on sand dune the beeds for destruction of the Po"ewich p icted. map' draw P by the Maine Geological =at attracted them in the first place. "Our philosophy is we have to work with Many state and IDW officials say they Survey, in IDepartment of Conservation. The theory is that with construction of nature,' he said. "As erosion occurs, we have difficulty understanding why people In part, they identify coastal zones where 'sea walls, houses and condominiums on the have to retreat from It. (With sea walls) in Maine and South Carolina want to build 'here is : high chance of flooding by waves. beach, waves generated by rough seas have you're buying time, but when the storm hits in areas known to be so susceptible to IIat le,st halt a house In that zone I' no I to disperse. according to Donald you're oing to pay dearly. It's a postpone destruction. damaged by a storm, It cannot be rebuilt. Wg,ce 'I the inevitable - that the soteean's Steve erill, director of the Division of Natural ment o I'd say those people have to be pretty Dickson, a marine geologist With Resources in the Department of Environ- going to reclaim that area." crazy if they are hit by a hurricane and then the Department of Conservation who drew mental Protection. The Maine and South Carolina laws are want to rebuild," said Barbara Ga on, the maps, said there are about 60 houses in Before the construction, the surges of designed to ensure that beach development assistant codes officer in Wells. "But Sea yd the zone In southern Maine. Half am at ocean pushed ashore by a storm such as does not get worse and, it a storm comes probably do the same up hem." 39 ~0 Homeowners place limits on public use ~f~l~y~N~7~0~LHART~STE~IN ~S~t~qO~qw~r~i~t~er ~R~K - Res~qL soon will dents and to ~is ~.~,k more ~c~2q=~s full ~I~l~y on the have to be oceanfront trail known as the C~l ~ath ~,ffp Homeowner~2qLa~l~o~y~ng the half~-m~ile trail ~u that stretches to ~o~rk Harbor Beach to Eastern Point %am that the ~2q=~,~j~,~,~,=er~o"s~'~y ~w~o~m by erosion, bicycles a~n~e ep~., and that ~qz~o~2qe~le who walk the scenic route do so at their own At the same time, the ~1~5 homeowners am vo~A~ing to stop people from cutting across their property, Sitting on their decks and partying on their lawns, even if it Means Closing the path to the public as alast resort~. . . . . . Fo~r now ~h~e horn- r~ie~2q@~qg~,~fo e~dCl~i~f~f~P~t~h t hope. A ~, to ~W:~,~qI~, ~P ~2qZ by posting a sign at York Harbor Beach outlining rules for using the ~-~ly~-ow~ned path. ~.~qj~8q@~n~evawt~E~ant them to realize the rights all these people have and honor them just like they expect ~qr~o~p~l~e to~qLonor their privacy and their homes. ~7b~at's t I n a nutshell," says Jim Riley, whose wife, Ann, c~o-~cha~irs the new association. ~T~he ~R~iley~s, and group ~c~D~-~-~%airma~n ~6qMt~qV Ray- mond say that the path has taken t~q@~g as record numbers o~fvis~ito~r~s walk the trall~. 'We've seen an almost 300 percent Increase In usage, if not more, in the past eight years," Jim Riley says. ~S~w~e~p~qb~qo~qt~q. ~C Chartered buses blamed Waves pound t~h~e r ~C t~he Cliff Path at York Part of the blame goes to the chartered buses that make regular stops at York Harbor Beach as part Decades of public ~a~c~ce~qs~qS of their New England leaf tours, the homeowners ~0qT~, In addition, they say other tourists am lured t~o ~2qTe ~qne problem Is compounded by York residents that after decade ~n~e~w~s~p~a~- Cliff Path by travel book reviews and per~ads~,~a~swe~l~l ~a~sbr~ochu~msput~out byloca~l Inns. pen le have a right t~ow~a~lk the path p~a & natural reaction ~J~qi~qm R~qi Mark Foster, owner of the nearby Step Neck Inn~, It readily admits to rap~italixing on the w~a~qW~s ~spectacu- you've been using It for so long, l~r ocean v~iewt~o attract and entertain Inn guests.. proprietary interest~ In ~YOL~L~r~Ow~qn min Again, the homeowners hope ~q1~q1 "We offer It as a benefit ... just like the beaches," .he ~s~qs~q!:.~.~n~q;~qW~q;, don't o~w~n that either, but It's part of solve their ~- York a, things in York are nice. ~7~r~h~at'~s why ~2q=M~s It p~r~oh~! ghtt~l~me walks, re~q4 peop~l~ec~omeb~e~r~* o~nv~arat~io~n." stay on the path and off the Ann Riley says the Cliff Path ~w~as not designed for a~n~yon~&~q*om entering or leaving th point except York Harbor Reach~q- ~qT such abuse, and is showing the ~U~1 effects. ban picnicking, loud music, littering ~7~be path, which shifts from asphalt to concrete t~o rock-studded dirt and varies in width from three Posting the rules will allow the ~qh feet to six inches, Is crumbling In spots. One concrete the police whenever the), suspect S~~c,~ion rests primarily on a single, large rock as the result oft~h~e ocean eroding the supporting soil. p~a~q@~sing or other transgressions, they 'We wish to continue to allow ~(~)~n~e particularly sharp comer features ~a~n unstable "I but within these parameters," edge where a running child could slip, trip and ~qP~1~8~2q3~t can't be done, then probably fall 20 feet. close It down." Raymond says ~qOe "greatest menace" to the path Is from bicycles that Dot only erode the t~r~a~l~l, but pose a ~7be threat sounds to th Moody Beach property -~am w~qh threat to walkers and the riders themselves as they hurtle around curves and careen down steep concrete earlier this year and won the right stairs ~a~nd stone steps. access to the beach fronting their Not all of the homeowners~' safety concerns deal surface, the two cases do parallel ear. with the path itself. For one thing, both ~7~be~y also worry that tourists standing on boulders ~2q"~Ps of ~qho ~qE~, the same lawyer, Sidney rof will he -~.~sh~L~d out to sea by huge waves during For another. both groups have storms and drown, as three people did last y~e their property being abused ~b~ya~qb~qur~, Y~~r~k~'and ~Og~unqu~it. A fence sip ~dop hike ~n~e~, the Cliff Path. But that's as far as the comparison T~hax~ter told York selectmen at Liability ~q4uest~qioned "It makes us ~v~e~0qv~irvo~ps~.~" says Ann Riley. The homeowners have tried to block direct access month that the Moody Beach case The homeowners' r~iew sip cautions visitors to stay Raym~o~n~i~f and ~R~f~l~e~y~s~; ~say high costs prohibit to their homes be erecting barriers along the path, youths on bikes or v~anda~ll~i~an. off the rocks, and notes the path will close to the ~bomeownes from perm~a~ne~q@~n~qo~lmy fixing the path. ~g from a wire fence and bushes to wooden posts Further, be noted the Moody Be public when there's snow, ire or high seas. It also Ann Riley estimates ~e~ow~nerr have poured ~6q=~ck~s connected by bits of string. were asking t~h~at the court recognize prohibits bikes and tour buses. roughly ~$140,~DOO Into various sections of the path In some cases, however, the winding path runs rights down to the ~l~ow w~atermar~ql~qL The residents feel the sign should reduce their over the past decade. directly over a ~homeownee~s lawn or within a few In York, after studies, surveys an liability in case o~fa~n accident. Homeowners feel a majority of people who walk feet of a house. town attorney. ~i~t~'s been ~etty so "It's a gray area," Jim Riley says, noting the law the fragile trail "respect the path and treat It that the Cliff Path is pr~iv~ate~2qu~0ow~qned. should protect them because they h~ave~n~*t done properly," but that some abuse It~. At the town's suggestion, the homeowners bought Most Important, the homeowners anything to deliberately increase the risk to walkers. "it makes you nervous if you're not hem and Individual "private property" signs that Instructed from their Mood), Beach counterpar ~c~o. t~a~nce to close the path to the public. He cedes, though, that It's just a matter of time have people climbing around the house," Jim ~qi le, walkers to stay on the p~a~2qt before someone gets hurt and decides to sue. says. have been destroyed or ~6 1 ~q@Il but two of the signs 'We want to keep the thing open," Water, Water Everywhere The National Flood Insurance Pro- gram (NFIP) was established by the Na- tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and is currently administered by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). From 1936 to 1986 Congress authorized and built 900 flood control projects, including 400 dams, miles of levees, floodwalls, floodways and improved channels. In spite of these projects the cost for dis- aster assistance continued to escalate. The structural improvements in fact en- couraged development in the floodplains and often created a false sense of security to those who thought they were forever protected. The NFIP is a non-structural ap- proach to the issue of development in the floodplains. The Program estab- lishes a partnership approach between the Federal, State and Local units of governments. Congress provides sub- sidiary flood insurance to individuals in the flood-prone areas if in return the local municipalities agree to regulate all future development in the floodplain. In Maine, 933 communities participate in the Program with approximately 1,483 policies in effect for over $92,635,400 in coverage. In Maine the State Coordinating Agency is the Department of Economic and Community Development/Office of Comprehensive Planning (DECD/OCP). The Coordinator is W. Louis Sidell, Jr., "Lou", a Senior Planner at OCP. Each year the State enters into a Comprehensive Cooperative Agree- ment (CCA) with FEMA for funding to provide assistance to the communities. Community assistance for floodplain management takes several forms such as contacts, visits, workshops, ordinance assistance and publications to mention a few. Workshops are an integral part of the educational process for local officials and the public. The State tries to sponsor at least 4 workshops a year and often works closely with the Regional Plan- ning Commissions. Efforts are made to balance the locations geographically as well as between riverine and coastal communities. The success of the Pro- gram depends on how much the local officials understand and correctly ad- minister the local floodplain manage- ment ordinances. The ultimate success is measured in the amount of reduction in damage and claims that result from flooding. As part of the educational process, an interactive video conference is scheduled for August 23, 1989 at six locations around the state. Please see the July 1989 issue of NEXUS for more details. As communities convert from the emergency phase of the Program to the regular phase they need to revise or replace their ordances to remain com- pliant. Occasionally Federal Regula- tions will change, necessitating or- dinance revisions. The state has prepared several model ordinances to reflect the various needs of Maine's com- munities whether they be coastal, riverine, emergency or regular phase communities. The state coor- dinator is available to help the com- munity through the amending process to be completed later this year. A publica- tion for protecting homes from flood damage is slated for the first half of next year. The State also has numerous FEMA publications concerning floodplain management available for distribution. The majority of these are free to communities for distribution to their constituents. In summary, the Program's success relies on the team effort of FEMA, the State, the regional planning commis- sions, and the communities. If you are in doubt as to why or how a particular aspect of the program should work please call Lou Sidell at 289-6800. E. Ocean and Coastal Use Management A. What primary uses of your state's waters most often come into conflict with one another? What innovative techniques is your state using to manage these use conflicts? The increase in development along the coast together with increasing activity in the State's coastal waters has increased incidences of contamination and closure of shellfish beds. Traditional water and waterfront uses (e.g. recreational and commercial fishing and boating) are increasingly coming into conflict with each other and with non-water dependent uses (e.g. retail stores, condominiums, etc.) Recently, a conflict arose concerning a proposal to dispose of dredge spoils from the Piscataqua River to an approved site in State waters. The problem is that the vessel-traffic route that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed for the barges transporting the dredge spoils traverses lobstering grounds. The fishing community opposed the proposed route claiming the barges could destroy thousands of dollars worth of fixed lobster gear. The Department of Marine Resources (DMR) has served as a conduit of information between the affected fishing community and the Corps and has facilitated negotiations between the two parties. A tentative agreement has been reached on an alternative route which appears to have satisfied both parties for the time being. Various other actions have been taken by State and local governments in Maine to resolve water use conflicts: 1. Water dependent uses were given priority consideration over non-water dependent uses by P.L 794. 2. Coastal locations suitable for water dependent uses were identified and mapped under the Coastal Program; non-water dependent uses may be prohibited in these areas. 3. The Coastal Program assisted with creation of the Maine Marine Alliance to help a group of diverse organizations to work in concert to resolve conflicts and protect and promote their common marine interests. :... 4. A number of municipalities currently are preparing harbor management plans which will be used as the basis for zonin- land and water areas and uses. 5. The State Planning Office currently is conducting a multiple-use planning analysis of the State's marine waters with a view toward developing the framework for a comprehensive State marine policy. The initial objectives of the analysis are: (a) to provide a review and summary of the activities occurring in the State's marine waters and the State's role in managing those activities; (b) to identify multiple-use conflicts and management deficiencies in the existing structure; and (c) to 42 provide recommendations on improving the@@existing management structure and efficiently allocating benefits derived from the resources. , 2. How is your state, and specifically how is the coastal program, involved in innovative means of managing uses in Federal waters, e.g., Federal review, issues-specific task forces, memoranda with Federal agencies? The State, through the Coastal Program continues to participate in the Department of the Interior's Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee and the Regional Technical Working Group to resolve any potential conflicts regarding the OCS. A Corps of Engineers Maine State General Permit was renewed effective May 6, 1988 to run to May 1993 (reproduced below). The General Permit covers specified types of cases under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Under it the Corps reviews permit application files at the DEP and LURC every month or six weeks to identify cases where the Corps has jurisdiction. It is then determined whether the Corps' Nationwide Permit or the Maine State Program General Permit applies, or whether an individual permit is required. No separate application or other action is required of the applicant unless notified by the Corps, for example if it should require additional information. (Previously the Corps and the DEP used a joint permit application form, but this is now superceded by the DEP's Natural Resource Protection Act application form and procedures under the General Permit.) 43 F. Public Access 1. Describe your State's CZM and non-CZM efforts to enhance coastal public access through land acquisition, construction projects, and planning during the past year. What innovative techniques have been used to increase public access? Please provide the CZM and non-CZM funding (federal, state, and/or local) used on coastal public access efforts. This should include at a minimum, the number of projects by project type and any quantitative information available. For example, public and/or private investment as a result of 306A and non-CZM projects, increased number of visitor days, acres or miles of shoreline acquired for public access should be provided if available. Public access opportunities come in many shapes and sizes. For example, they can be coastal State parks, regional all-tide boat ramps, local boat slips or paths for local fishermen. The State of Maine's efforts in enhancing public access to the coast actually involve a variety of CZM and non-CZM funded programs! each designed to improve some type of coastal access opportunities. As a result there is actually a network of State coastal access programs which as a whole addresses access in a comprehensive fashion. The State's involvement in coastal public access can be categorized into four general functions: public access planning; public access acquisition; institutional improvement of public access opportunities; and discovery of existing, but unused, access opportunities. The Maine Coastal Program, through its Coastal Access Coordinator (State-funded position) facilitates and provides for coordination of programs falling under these four categories in order to bring about an integrated and comprehensive approach to providing public access opportunities. Coastal Public Access planning occurs at many levels in Maine including the following programs: Coastal Access Coordination Program at SPO provides statewide access inventory and resource data to local and regional planners and is responsible for access needs analysis over the entire coast. The Department of Economic and Community Developmen:'t' provides technical assistance and administers waterfront planning grants to support local coastal access planning (CZM funded) and administers the Comprehensive Planning Act which requires access components in local comprehensive plans (non-CZM program). The regional planning commissions who through the coastal access coordinators (CZM funded) provide.assistance to local planners and provide localized input to State planning efforts. 44 Coastal Public Access acauisition activities occur through a number of State program activities including: The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund administered by DECD. Waterfront Action Grants (CZM funded) administered by DECD. Federal Wallop-Breaux sport fishing access funds administered by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The Facilities for Boating Fund (non-CZM) Ad-ministered by the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. The Land for Maine's Future Board (non-CZM) which to date has committed to acquiring $ 6.1 million worth of land which will provide direct coastal access for the public. Activities involving institutional improvement of public access opportunities are not attributable to any one agency program because they are more amorphous in nature and often involve only subtle day to day activities. While this can involve many State agencies, the Coastal Program primarily through its Coastal Access Coordinator approaches institutional arrangements across State government with an eye toward improving coastal access. Examples of such activities include: Periodic evaluation of laws and regulations to determine if they can be amended to improve public access opportunities. Efforts during legislative activities and rulemaking to support provisions in legislation, regulations and other policy statements that improve access opportunities. For example, the Coastal Program's input was involved in the recent formation of submerged lands leasing policies by the Bureau of Public Lands which affirmatively support and protect coastal public access opportunities. Coastal access discovery programs are aimed at finding access opportunities that may exist legally but have been forgotten or unused, A number of coastal communities and recji6,ns have undertaken public access discovery efforts in the past, .-some funded by CZM through planning grants, but these programs were designed individually and so success was mixed. Recently the Coastal Program completed its own pilot right of way discovery program involving nine coastal communities. This program resulted in some important products including: A number of rediscovered ROW's (16 confirmeq and 11 requiring further legal inquiry out of a total 37 sites investigated) which-the towns can reclaim, plan for, and, if necessary, record. 45 A demonstration to other towns of the value of such a program. Hopefully this program will show that finding and reclaiming current public holdings can be more efficient than buying new sites to satisfy access needs. The instructional handbook for communities who want to undertake ROW discovery projects in the future. Four new boat launch sites (about 8 acres total) were acquired in the past two years through the Facilities for Boating Program, bringing the total number of the program's coastal boat launch projects to 53. Three new coastal sites totalling 25 acres were acquired through Waterfront Action grants. Through the Land for Maine's Future Fund a total of over 2000 acres was acquirea with over 10,000 feet of combined coastal frontage. 2. What percentage of your State's coastal zone has been inventoried to determine existing public rights-of-way since the beginning of the CZM program? How many public rights-of-way have been identified? How has the state informed the public of the existence of these areas? Essentially 100 percent of Maine's coastal zone has been inventoried. Last year, data from a 1978 coast-wide public access survey by the State Planning Office was combined with access site data from more current local and regional inventories to form a State data base file of coastal access sites. This past year the data was reviewed for accuracy by each coastal community. All resulting updates and changes have been made in the data base. The access inventory identifies 682 publicly owned access sites in coastal communities. All access sites identified in the inventory have also been delineated on maps of each coastal municipality. With the inventory update, the maps also were updated and will be distributed to the towns, regional planning commissions, DECD and other relevant agencies before the end of this year. 3, Does the state have a recent coastal public access guide? If so, please attach a copy. A comprehensive coastal public access guide is not available for Maine. However, major access sites are indicated in the:, Maine Atlas and Gazetteer recently published in a 1989 editibnf..' by DeLorme Publishing Company. 46 ~0 this land. The town last sought ~~~~ c access aW~, the owners of Wells again to the beach in the spring shortly h v~ been deprived of our rights ~o after ~the Maine supreme ~cc~i~i~in ruled ~u~s~e and enjoy our property," Jones in March that ~the landowners could said front the audience at an to seek public kc~e sunbathers a~nd strollers off the afternoon discussion that was part ~P I ~m~il~e~,~l ng s~1r~e ~1~1, Homeowners of ~th~e ~all-da~y symposium. ~0~- ~Y~D a~c~c di~n~gl~y turned down the offer Carter said ~- r~,~souno that [he intense ~8qN ess to ~a~nd accused Wells of t~iying to act national publicity given the Moody ~- ~q1~q@ ~,~4~1~.~0~' ~1~1 k, the victor and no~r the I ~B~e~a~c ~h case has cu~t back much of ~th~e ~4qo ~G~& ~0 ~i~t~y s~er a~t the ~4qe~ ~.~1~1, ~@~% Moody Beacl~qi ~4 Ad of the drawn-out l~e~gao public's interest in the beach, battle. Since then. Wells has hired an although h~e said crowds of people By DIRK have gathered this summer along 0 ~B~F~VERIDGE ~qV~qJ appraiser t~o Place a value on h~e ~6qA~0qe 0 ~P a", ~#~P,~q@~N ~"~.~9 ~-~,~-~b ~0 three narrow access points owned by ~4qF~2qO ~- ~0qK~0qo Associated Press Writer I.~C ~1~0~Y ,be, ~.~qf~ql oceanfront property of 10 of ~th~e 126 ~,~4 ~qV ~1~1~%~, ~e~p L ~s to I lots on Moody Beach. Carter said ~4~N ~0q9~3 ~c~P of ~'~1~q@~1~, ~t~. PORT AND - ~7~1~C town ~- ~t~he town. ~I~4qR ~X~q; ~~~s ~~I ~Q once more to Friday that the initial appraisals will ~"Wc~'~v~e got calls that wa~m life- P~r~uad~c~a'~qMoody Beach pr~op~en ~g~ua~td~s on those three access ~-~Y ~y~S ~y be in by September. ~'~i~t~e~. ~q@~0q@~P~o~, owners open the sandy short to to After that, town officials will meet points," he said. with the landowners. If no agree ~e~p~, ~1~q@~4q4~2q@ the public before making moves to ~2qV~2qC~q) ~-~qt ~'~0~q0~4~-~e~v~q" ~q1 ~1~4q4~, buy ~h~ beach, town manager Jon ~mcn~1 is reached. the town will look ~1~8q@~0 ~8qe~'~o~~q@~q@~& ~0 ~l~@~n Caner said Friday. into buying ~th~e beach next spring, ~0~0 c~p ~.~0 'We will be sitting down Carter said. with ~T~, ~.~0 ~S~l~a homco ncr~,~, and we will b~e trying On~e Of the More vocal ~l~A~ndo.n. ins. Dr. Warren Jones. said ~th~r ~6qV to ~~~~~i~a~l~e ~t~h~e right ~1~0 use [hat ~6~4 ~4q@~0~q:~q5 ~%~0 cc, ~~l ~l~y beach in 1990.~" Carter told property Owners were being treated differently from people who own a ~q*4~4qu~0qb~o symposium on Moody Beach at the an it, ~*~6 ~4~1~, lop ~nivc ~ity of School of ~y other type of land. ~40 0~, Maine ~%~0 ~2qA~4qv~6q@ ~0 ~o op, ~0 GO ~q@~0q@~.~N~0qejd~o ~q4 ~Vo ~0 If-, ~0~- 1 ~" ~C~, ~q@~qi~, ~0 ~v~:~6~qZ~q@~@ ~C~.~*~-~* ~1~0q%~2q0~q@ ~'~o ~l~p ~q~ql~a ~s,~@ ~c~p~-~,~z ~2qe~e ~C~P ~v~e ~4~0 ~.~k~, ~_~0 d~%~c~' ~%~N ~%~o ~k~t~o~w~k~, ~p~s~8q"~O ~;~q@~@ ~"~o ~@~,~p I _~4qe~@ ~4~1~0~.~. A ~e~a A~, ~w~- ~0 ~c ~84q4 ~i~z~q@ ~56q: ~1~, ~b ~,~,e ~l~o~, a, e~i ~0 ~C~P ~-~4 ~v-~8qe ~v~p ~4~0~0 ~%~Q ~�~v ~6, ~z~C~P ~V~,~@ ~0 v ~-~1~0 e~, ~N~, IN ~l~e ~q~P ~6~4 A ~*~,~6qP. a ~u ~J~,~% ~'\~s~" Is is ~,~0 'lip ~S~P ~-~q0 ~g~qo ~q-~0q4~q@~s~p ~i~q@~,~, ~C~P ~6~0 ~0q4P ~e~0qP ~P ~0, ~q;~0qP~k~o ~0 0.0~1~, ~P on, ~0~. ~.~4~0~4 ~q4~0 NO ~C~"~, ~0 ~x~1~b ~q ~8qe-~0q0~1"~.~0 ~4q0 ~-~4q* ~C~P~4qS~4qA~0qV~@~-~6q0~1~6~p~,~)~,~8qe~4qP ~0 ~2qe~1~4~1~1~1~V 0 ~%~V~P ~V~V ~.~.~" ~0 ~s~t~, ~N~V ~qi~i~qg ~q@~@ ~. ~s~o~u~l~l~v~e ~'~0 ~C~,~.~V ~w~v~ ~qi~q0~qz~.~"~* ~%- ~V~P ~s~@ ~q@~6~4 ~0~1 ~V~P ~0 ~:~% ENS .~a L ~0~ ~ ~)~P ~-~% ~'~. ~0~.~- ~cp ~6 ~p ~5~, ~v~p ~*~0 ~C~P ~0~\ ~b~@ 0 ~V~P ~6qV~2qK ~o~8qW~l~2qe ~s ~)~P~ ~0~01~) ~S~o ~& ~8qe~,~"~@~s ~.~0 ~,~q ~p ~$~3~2~,~0~0~0 ~c~p ~~4~, ~V~a ~0~"~.~0 "two, $3~5~P~O~O ~0 ~0~9~q0 \~0 owl, ~W~-~M ~P~A~f~f~a~n~d ~$~3~6~,~0~9~1~5, Moody Beach compromise sought in Wells WELLS (AP) - It would cost the are 126 landowners with frontage on the But he added that, "We're kind of town $516~q,000 to buy property on Beach. playing down the appraisals and playing up Moody Beach and restore public access, A state supreme court ruling earlier this the cooperative nature" of the cornp,o- but town officials ho~qp~q@ a compromise with year restricted public recreational rights to mist. "Many of these People, as well as the landowners will avoid the need to spend the mile-long strip of sand. board of selectmen, want to move forward ~a~n~q@ money. Th~qe town then ~qWr~qed an appraiser 'with this and pu~qt the past behind us." o~qw~qn Manager Jonathan Carter told a to study the value of 1~q0 ~qb~qe~qacl~qifro~qm In a decision based on a J~q7~q1~qih~q-c~qen~q- news conference Tuesday night that efforts properties and develop estimates, in t~qury colonial ordinance, ~qth~qe divided, were underway to reach agreement with case the town were to buy the land, court ruled this year that public rights in property owners ~qto allow public access to perhaps through ~qe~qrn~qin~qen~qt- domain. the area of the beach between the seawall the sandy shore as long as the privilege is Appraiser Norman Gosline of Gardiner and ~qlo~qw tide are li~qrnited to fishing, bird not abused. said the properties ranged in value from hunting and navigation. ~. Marc than ~q50 property owners have ~q$400,000 to ~q1~q1~q1.1 million. The beach is The court rejected the appeal that the joined the Friends of Moody Beach and worth 8 percent of the prop~qen~qty value, and rights b~qe updated to include swimming and begun negotiations on a "recreational that is the amount the town w~qo~qpld pay, sunbathing, favorite pastimes of tourists ~f~ic~en~qs~qe" for the town, Carter said. There Carter said Tuesday. who converge on Wells each summer. 47 ~0 2~, ~i0o Acres Offered to Land for Maine's F~ature Board Conservation Group~'to Purchase 12~q7 100 Acres of Do~neast Property By Mary Anne Clancy a joint press release. "It is located on Board ~%~i~l~l vote on the acquisition at I_M~FB, according to staff planner For the third time in as many a piece of shoreline stretching from its Nov. 13 meeting in Augusta. ~Us~sa Widoff. years, a conservation group has in- Cu~tler~to~Lub~e~c. Often referred tons The Fund's announcement ends ~"We have been interested in more ~terve~n~ed to protect a piece of the th~e Bold Coast, the parcels contain a months of speculation that began than just the Colter piece, but that is Cutler ~c astli~ne from possible unique variety of geological and when the Hearst Cu~rpor~a~t~i decided the best," said Widoff, referring ~t~o developm~qo~m. ecological features including coastal to sell its Maine t~i~mb~erloannds last Hearst's holdings in other parts of The Conservation Fund of Virginia cliffs, cobble beaches, unusual spring. Washington County. "I went out and and the Maine Coast Heritage Trust volcanic formations, raised peat looked at the property and developed (MCHT) an~no d this week that bogs, rare plant species a~nd has According to Jay Espy, the presi- a proposal for the board." ~a~n~c~e a~p~- the V~irgi~ni~a-b~a~s~ed group will pur. uncommonly large populations of dent of MCHT, ~h~i~s organization W~idoff said that, because MCHT chase 12~,1~00 acres of Cutler and whales, bald eagles, ospreys, and pro~ached the Virginia conservation and the Conservation Fund had ir~ii- Whiling, including four miles of other birds and mammals~." group when it learned ~u~l the Hearst Listed conversations with the Hearst shoreline, from ~t~he Hearst Corpora- If a~l~l goes according to plan, the decision. Corporation and ~LM]FB knew that a tion's Down East Timberlands Fund ~%~,~i~l~l se~U2~,l~W~o~l~t~ho~se acres, in- "At that time, we ~h~ad~qi~ourch~as~ed conservation entity was interested in Division. cluding the shoreline, to the State of Boot Head and Western Head (in purchasing it, it did not compete. -The property, consisting of two Maine through t~i~l~ie~"~L~and For Maine's Cutler) and we were aware that ~qWs She is hopeful, however, th~at,~the adjacent parcels is one of th~e largest Future Board ~(~L~M~FB) and MCHT (Hearst) piece was t~he Largest and ~LMFB will accept the Fund's offer t~o privately-owned undeveloped tracts will lease the remaining acreage perhaps the best," said Espy. sell 2100 acres to the state for $2.5 in Washington County," stated from the Fund. The Hearst ~an~n~o~q@~j~ceni~e~nt also million. M~C~HT and the Conservation Fund in The Land for Maine's Future caught the attention of the staff of "There has been no public involve- and state officials as well as MCHT for the people of Washington Coal'- "If ~the state ~ow~t~e~i i~t, the state must m~e~nt by local residents or town of- and the Conservation Fluid. ~ty," he said. "Bout Head ~a~nd Western r~e~s~p~o ~i~t to the needs, and desire, of fi~c~i~al~S~." ~The ~MCHT piece, according to Read built have three ~n~ul~es ~of shore ~qn and both are available for ~W~e people of Maine,~" s~he said. "The ~T~he release goes on to say that "b~y Espy Ilea to the west of Route 191 frontage Fund is responsible to i~t~s Cu~nstiL~u- as~~Lng ~M~CHT and the C~o~m~serv~a~t~i~o~n ~b~e~qL~q@~qd u~k~.~, ~l~o~w~,~, of Cutler ~m~i~d extends iow-~i~mpac~t recreation. As far as ~I~'~m ~e~m~s~. We art in a better position to it, Fund to arrange the acquisition, north to the ~Cu~f~le~r~-Whi~U~ng Line. concerned, the quality of Life of ~L~e~gr~a~t~e state ownership with a local ~LM~F~B ~has evaded public account- The piece pro W~a~s~hi~s~i~g~u~i~n Comity is ~f~i~ed ~to the land or regional perspective." ability fur the proceedings." posed for state pur~- base ~L~o~o~ll ~i~f that land base ~i~s~i~m, longer Wid~a~l~f says that if ~L~M~FB approves "~L~A~i~c~a~i apt-oval is required ~f~or such chose runs from Houle 1~91 to the available to ~W~a~s~t~a~n~g~t~o~n County the purchase front the ~$~X mi~W~i~n~i large ~(~L~q"B~) acquisitions, but town water. residents, that quality of Life is bond approved f~o~r such purchases by officials have nut been consulted or MCHT'~s current plans include use ~d~o~o~l~n~e~d." of tile ~acre~a~ge(~c~ir recreation mid ~c~u~n~- voters in 1987, the land "will be even notified," states the ~WCA. tinned timber hurv ~ti~n~g,~a~c~c~ord~i~ng ~Wid~off is also adamant when 4ue~s- available for a~l~l of the people of The alliance also charges that the as~t Timberlands ~t~i~o~ned about the possibility of a to the Down ~E Maine to enjoy." head of the Conservation Fund "has harvesting plaint. federal park. "This is the kind of property that a history of secretly buying up Large The company ~h~a~s been harvesting "I call say that for many, many tracts of fund i~n rural areas for reasons, we agree that it should nut people voted for i~n the first place," federal park development acting as the area on a regime that continues be a national park," she said. "Willi site said. a front ~man for the Puri Service" through 1993~, according to Espy- state ownership, we have ~the ability The Washington County Alliance and gives, as a~l~l example of this '.'The 10~,~0~0~i acres will be held in to control that and t~he ~arr~m~agen~i~e~n~t (WCA), a group organized in ~t~he charge, Washington County, private ~t~w~ids," he said. "If the between MCHT and the Conservation spring of 19~N to fight ~the possible Maryland. Hearst Corporation sold to a private Fund is specifically based ~o~i~l ~l~o~ok~n~i~g designation of t~h~e Cut~ler-Lub~e~c Both W~idoff and Espy are per. developer, would the town of Cutler plex~ed by the WCA~'~s reaction. -it land? I at Lan~ control.~" coastline as a n ~ti~o~nal park. sees it have input into use of ~th, Wid~quff says that the WCA is differently. "You don't negotiate a sale ~in think ~n~(~A." CHT or the Fund mistaken when it charges that ~L.M~F~8 "A very large parcel of land, i~n- ~p~u~b~l~i~c~.~"~s~a~y~s Espy referring to the When asked if M must obtain local approval before eluding twit the town of Cutler and Fund's discussions with Hearst. would consider ~the area as a possible proceeding with a purchase. part of Whiting, is being acquired by Espy says Unit tile MC~HT m~una~ge~- federal park, Espy said "~i~m~e~qu~iv~o~- "There's provision ~i~l~l our law that tile state ~a~nd ~ou~t-~of-stat~e en- ~m~e~nt plan for the 10~,~OW acres it c~ally~. no." requires, if a~l~l assessed value of an ~Wronn~i~e~n~ta~l~i~s~i~t interests,~" states the leases will be developed with Cutler "~MCHT~l~i~s~tat~ed intention has been acquisition is o~ne percent or inure of WCA in a Nov. ~6 news release. residents and Washington Comity to manage our lands Were (in Cutler) a town's valuation. we must ~l~uiv~e municipal approval. Since Unit Land h~as been in tree growth, i~ts ~a~h~b~c~b~c~d value is less ~th~a~t~i ~o~n~e percent of tile valuation." According to state figures, Cutler's Town favored in dispute over ~I~W~9 valuation is ~$12~,~55~1~1,U~00. Wid~uff says that Cutler residents fences at Old Orchard Beach will have the opportunity to comment at ~t~he Nov. 13 I_M.~F~B ~i~ne~e~t~i~ng or in PORTLAND (A~P) - Ile state S~o- A York County Superior Court writing to the board before that ~~~en~n~e Judicial Court aided Monday judge ~U~irew out the complaint. The meeting. With old Orchard Beach in di~s ~ut~e u~n~a~r~a~i~nno~u~s supreme court justices During that meeting, ~L~M~FB will ever fences put up to pro~te~K~c~t une upheld that decision Monday. also ~c~m~v~iid~.r the pur~c~l~q@ ~of M~ou~l~a~t grass on the ~Ww~n~'~s popular sandy ~-~n~w court said that the property Ki~ne~u ~o~i~l Mu~t~i~s~e~l~le~ad ~I~ake and ~S~w~idy~ shore. owners were trying ~t~o claim ~Su~per~i- Point Beach ~m Stockton Springs. Be~ach~fr~ont property owners who or access rights to those enjoyed by Should the board approve ~the pu~r~- were angered when the town put other ~r~ty ~0~%~,~n~er~s in Old Or- chase of the 2~.~1~0~4 acres ~i~n Cutler, it fences around ~t~he grass seedlings, chard ~qK~0q=~h~, but the justices wrote will mark the second purchase of limiting access to the beach, h~a~d no that as a general rule, municipalities W~a~s~i~l~d~n~g~t~on~ County property by the legal cause to stop the fencing, the are "not required to provide ~qab~qo~qt- I_~2qX~qFB. unanimou~qi~qs justices r~qi~qtl~qed. Ling owners access ~qto a public park In August, ~qLMFB purchased the ~0~q;~q'~q1 don't think the people in Old different from that provided to ~qth~qe 90-~qa~qcr~qe coastal headland of chard got a fair shake from ~qth~qe general public." Sh~qa~qckf~qo~qr~qd Head ~qi~qn Eastport. town," said attorney James L~q. A~qn- ~qT~qh~qa~qt property is ~qn~qu~qi~qn~qa~qg~qed by the diffred of Saco, who represented the The attorney for the town, Cather- pro ~qt "I'M ine O'Connor of Portland, said the Bureau ~qof Parks ~qa~qnd Recreation a~qnd in ~64qcr ~qy owners. disappointed outcome, but I did my best." sand dunes, which are designed to Widuff said Unit ~qthe Cutler piece, if The town in April began ~qt~qhe fenc- retain sand and make the beach big- approved, will also be managed by ing and the seeding of ~qthe dune grass ger, will be vital to Old Orchard the Department of Conservation's as part of its beach management Beach. Bureau ~qof Public Lands~q-. plan. The seeding was done on an "It's in the long-term best inter- area fou~qr-~qte~qnthso~qf~qa ~qin~qdelon~qg~qan~qt:1~q5~q0 est~qs of ~qthe town to protect the beach, feet wide. which is its greatest asset," MS. Property owners Claudette Tr~qaut. O~q'Connor said, ve~qt~qter, Carl ~qT~qr~qau~qrvetter~q. George But Audiffr~qed said there might Ouellette, Thomas Donovan and have been better ways to protect the ~O~d~qk~qL~qL~qe Dubuc complained that their beach. and he said some ex~qp~qe~6qm be- access to the beach, which previous- fieve there is no way for humans to ly ~qW~qa~qs unrestricted, was limited to ~q10 influence beaches in the long run pathways through the fenced area. anyway. ~qJ~56qA -, I .,- I 48 G. Urban-Waterfronts and Ports 1. What are the major problems (both environmental and economic) concerning harbors and urbanwaterfronts in your coastal zone? How have you addressed the problems? Please give examples. Maine's major problems concerning harbors and urban waterfronts are: maintaining and improving water quality as the number and diversity of users continue to grow; balancing traditional water dependent uses and non-water dependent uses; conserving the State's coastal heritage (promoting urban waterfront revitalization in a manner which will maintain the unique Maine flavor which is a primary impetus for tourism, a major component of the State economy); and managing growth and diversity in the face of escalating costs of waterfront real estate. As population and usage of Maine's harbors and ports have increased over the past decades, water quality has declined. Casco Bay in highly populated and industrialized southern Maine was recently reported to have serious water quality problems. Levels of bacteria, toxic and nutrient agents have been identified along with sources, such as industrial discharges, boating and related toxic materials, petroleum conveyance, stormwater runoff, combination storm and sanitary sewers, overboard discharges, etc. Similar problems been reported elsewhere along the Maine coast. The demand for coastal waterfront for all types of purposes is growing, especially in southern and mid-coastal Maine where increasing population and development are occurring. High-value non-water dependent uses such as condominiums are tending to displace traditional water dependent marine industries, the so- called "gentrification" of the waterfront. The existing marine infrastructure all along the coast is ageing, new facilities are needed, channels and anchorages need improvements made as well as 'maintenance dredging. Federally assisted projects require a larger local cost share than formerly. Maine's commercial fishing and marine industries are divided up between many small towns rather than a few large affluent harbors. The result is that diminishing federal assistance is putting needed facilities out of their individual financial reach, and State assistance is needed. These issues are being addressed through a wide variety of methods. Recommendations have been made for improving Casco Bay water quality, for example, including its nomination to the National Estuary Program, and a specific action program is underway. The Coastal Program is helping to support the MArine Monitoring Program established by the 1988 legislature in the,,.. DEP's Bureau of Water Quality Control, which developed the CA8co 49 Bay action plan, and which is examining heavy metals and organic compounds in mollusks, fish tissues and sediments from Maine's marine waters, in an effort to identify and ultimately control their land based sources. A marine pollution baseline is being established for coastal Maine by obtaining and analyzing sediment samples for Kittery, Casco Bay, Boothbay Harbor, Machias Bay, Jonesport and other areas. To help prevent further displacement of water dependent operations the State passed legislation establishing the policy that marine uses -- such as boat yards, commercial fishing operations, marinas and waterborne commerce -- should receive priority in shoreline siting decisions over uses such as condominiums and restaurants which do not depend on the water. This policy is reflected in proposed new mandatory guidelines for Shoreland Zoning ordinances, and in the leasing of State-owned submerged lands by the Bureau of Public Lands. The policy is supported by a cooperative SPO/DECD project under which maps were prepared showing existing and prime water dependent use sites in all coastal cities and towns (see Protecting Prime Sites for Water Devendent Uses, SPO and DECD, March 1989). The City of Portland has highly diverse waterfront uses, including commercial shipping, cruise ships, pleasure boats, fishing vessels, oil terminals, drydocks and other ship-repair facilities. The City established a marine zone in its zoning ordinance to reserve a large portion of its harbor frontage exclusively for such water dependent uses. Efforts to revitalize waterfronts have included State and local funding for seven new fish piers to land and process Maine's growing fishing industry, planned with Coastal Program support. The Portland Fish Pier became home of the Portland Fish Exchange, the first of its kind in the nation, which has greatly enhanced the quality of fish available to consumers and improved prices for fishermen. other waterfront facilities such as parks and access facilities also have been funded through the Coastal Program. In April, 1989 the Governor issued an Executive Order to Establish an Interagency Task Force on Marine Infrastructure (No. 11 FY88-89). The Task Force is charged with recommending methods to protect that portion of the marine infrastructure that is essential to survival of commercial marine industries, particularly from the standpoints of project permitting under the State's environmental laws and the leasing of State-owned submerged land. The Task Force complements a comprehensive coastwide Marine Infrastructure Needs Study currently underway under the aegis of the Coastal Program. The Needs Study will recommend project priorities and funding sources; it will be the basis for providing State funding assistance for deserving loca@l harbor and waterfront projects, hoppfully to be backed up by a voter- approved bond issue. 50 The State recently passed its Comprehensive Planning and Growth Management Law, under which are required to plan for appropriate waterfront land uses and develop implementing ordinances. Under the new Harbor Management Act specific water areas can be zoned and supporting harbor ordinances adopted. The DECD Office of Comprehensive Planning has an aggressive program of local technical assistance for harbor and waterfront planning and zoning. It also supports thecoastal Regional Councils for the same purpose, together with administering local planning and Waterfront Action Grants. In November it hosted a two-day waterfront conference which drew over 200 local officials to explore the full range of waterfront.and harbor issues and solutions. 51 assistance or funding from Federal agencies, and perhaps even a NMI lawsuit from an aggrieved applicant. C. Ed,,in Nft.do- J,hn R. NICK-an. ),. 1"'_ The simplest, safest, and most equitable soluiion is to make DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION sure your harbor ordinances do not discriminate on the basis of Telphone (207) 289-3061 residency. You may charge higher fees for nonresidents in lieu of local tax payments for harbor services, up to a maximum of 5 November 7, 1989 times the amount charged to residents, but you cannot exclude nonresidents from your harbor or your harbor waiting list. You can develop ordinances that are designed to protect your harbor; =o example, you may want to favor certain types of uses, such as Dear Harbormaster or Town official: commercial fishing, or limit boat size in certain areas. As long as you can demonstrate that there is justification for your In 1988, the Maine State Legislature enacted several changes actions, local ordinances can be tailored to meet the needs of in the State Harbor Master Law, 38 M.R.S.A. Chapter 1. One your waterfront community and businesses. provision of this law, Section 7-A, has led to some confusion about mooring allocation requirements. As a result some towns For those towns whose-harhors &re large enough = rot yet have come into conflict with requirements of the Army Corps of crowded enough, moorings are not a problem at this tine. For Engineers over assignment of moorings on the basis of residency. others though, limited harbor space is already a major concern. The solution may be a harbor management plan that deals with this The Harbor Master Law directs that, if the available mooring and other important harbor management issues. spaces are not assigned, the harbor master must assign a mooring to any boat owner who requests one for personal use. Section 7-A Through harbor management planning you can determine how to states that if the harbor master (or other town official) has to safely accommodate the needs of all boaters in your harbor, the turn the applicant down, that person must be put on a waiting most efficient distribution of moorings, and the best ways to list. protect your harbors valuable resources, such as commercial fishing, scenic beauty, fish and shellfish stock, wildlife, and Section 7-A also describes how to allocate moorings to safe navigation. Many of these issues will be discussed at a Ln nonresidents to insure that nonresidents will not be denied workshop for local officials, Man& Harbors and K) Waterfronts, to be held at the Sam MZ1 access to Maine's harbors. The Law indicates that a harbor Z!:Z C MAnce Center in should have at least 10% of its moorings assigned to nonresident Rockport November 20-21. To learn more about the workshop, or commercial boaters and an additional 10% assigned to nonresident to find out more about harbor planningt contact the Maine pleasure boaters. T ese figures were not intended to serve as Department of Economic and Community Development, Office of caps or limits on the number of nonresi3-ent moorings in a harbor. Comprehensive Planning, at 289-6800. A recent informal survey of Maine harbors by the State's Attached for your information is a brief summary of the Department of Economic and Community Development found that a mooring allocation requirements of Maine's Harbor Master law. An majority of Maine's harbors already have more than 10% of their 85 page handbook that examines and explains the entire law is moorings in use by nonresident pleasure boaters. Only a few have available for $5.00 from the Un;vers4ty of Maine Cooperative 10% or more in use by nonresident commercial boaters, but Extension, 9 Coburn Ball, Unive.rsity of Maine, Orono, ME 04469. apparently demand by non-resident commercial operators is quite low. If you have any questions about the Harbor Master Law or Maine's Submerged Land Law, please contact me or Carol DiBello at It appears that very few of Maine's harbors need to take'any the Bureau of Public Lands, State House Station f22, Augusta, special action to increase the number of nonresident moorings in Maine 04333, Telephone 289-3061. their harbors; either they are already there, or there is not a high e@pough level of demand by nonresidents. Sincerely, However, even if your harbor already meets the state requirement of 10% or more of its moorings assigned to nonresidents, you should be aware that discrimination against new STEPHEN OLIVERI nonresident applicants is potentially a violation of the U.S. Resource Administrator Constitution, which guarantees equal rights and privileges to all citizens of the United States. To discriminate on the basis of residency opens your community to the possibility of denial of Than- A. Islorri%on. Di;eaor. BuTcau of Public Lands Slaic Housc Siation 22, Augusla. Maine 04@33 Offi,- L-ied w ANIH1. Hado, Building MOORINGS AND RESIDENCY A brief explanation of the mooring allocation requirements of Maine's Harbor Master Law: If your harbor has room for additional moorings, you must assign a mooring to any boat owner who applies for one unless there are valid reasons for denial. You cannot decline to issue a mooring without a good reason. An applicant's place of residence can not be a basis for denial. If your harbor does not have room for additional moorings, you must place the applicant's name on a waiting list. When spaces become available, they must be assigned to persons on the waiting list. If there are less than 10% nonresident moorings in your harbor, and there are nonresidents on your waiting list, you must assign any available moorings to the nonresidents on your list until you reach the 10% level. This applies to both commercial and pleasure boaters. However, to be in compliance with Federal requirements, once you have achieved the level of 10% nonresidents, you must assign moorings to persons on your waiting list in a nondiscriminatory fashion. You cannot refuse a mooring to a nonresident just because your harbor has 10% or more of its moorings already in use by nonresidents. This summary is intended for general information only, for complete details refer to the Harbor Master Law, 38 M.R.S.A. Chapter 1, Subchapter 1. For more information on Maine's Harbor Master Law or Submerged Lands Law contact the Bureau of Public Lands, State House Station #22, Augusta, Maine 04333, telephone (207) 289-3061. An 85 page guide to the State Harbor Master Law is available for $5.00 from the University of Maine Cooperative Extension, 9 Coburn Hall, University of Maine, Orono ME 04469. ~0 S~8q6a~q'rs Island is the answer. to Maine's ca~'rgo~a~sp~48qo Anyone with ~a c~or~i~m~m ~f~o~r the economic state of added cost that shippers avoid whenever possible. Bill F~qn Maine's mar~it~im industry would do well to spend an Fraser tells of a recent visit to Canada to see a new ~sh~,~0qr~qi bout or ~t~w~o with IBM Fr~z~z~@~er at the Mack Point Marine Guest ~q@~q3~q[~)~q6~( cargo liLtyo~n the S~t~4qr~-~q7~q;~i~c~e River at ~C~a~coun~a near an ~v~ie~r~0qti Terminal in S~q~@~@r~spor~t. Fraser is vice president of I~.T~.O~. ~u_ ~ou~p~, fi~nan ~b he pro ~i ~c~i~a go~v ~ent vessel Y~qa Corp. of Neu, England and oversees the stevedoring of Canada, At this half~-r~in~f~le long pier, dime ion] b~ar,~' Portsmou ~0 Column ~R~i ~a~0qf~0qf~a~t~i~on~s, of ~a~l~l d~r~y cargo. moving across the Bangor ~s~o~m uced bv Maine~'s Great Northern Nekoosa, is lacks not ~6 ~l~i~,~q%p ~,~0q2~d Aroostook Railroad pier at Mack Point. d~e ~to the dick, stored ship-side and loaded with no ~sh~ips~q'~qco~qn Today it's ~a small operation, "hanging on by a By William G. W~admBn added transfer or cost. Great Northern, long one of Sear- the crane thread," according to Fraser, who, clearly reca~lls~'th~e ~6 r~t'~s best customers, has told Fraser ~t~h~a~t~s~we ~, now Fraser boom days of 1~9~7~6-7~77~-~4-hen exports of Maine potatoes saw ~i ~s tonnage through the Neu- Brun ~i~c and ,a ,a ,a ,a nine g~a~q@~g~s of longshoremen - ~3~80 to 2~W workers - sheds cover most of it, and when loaded with paper for a of Saint John and Halifax as they do operation o~ti~a ~r~L toiling seven days a week, making good money that shipment allow only a narrow center passageway ~J~o~r ~the through Sea port. The problem. once again. is lack of Sears ~qI~qs~ql circulated through ~N~l~a~in~e~'~s coastal economy fr~on~q@ Han- specially equipped forklift trucks that handle giant rolls storage at Mach Point. Fraser notes that the capacity of during ju cock to Washington counties, of newsprint. The side aprons ~o~f the pier are restrictively his sheds is barely enough for a transfer ~op~er~a~tio~n, let tons from current ~qn That's all ch~i~n~ged now. I.T.O.~'~s permanent staff ~' in- short and installation of a crane on the pier would pre- alone storage. ~s~i~o~n ~ql~qu~qm cluding Fraser, numbers three. Vessels come and go, cl~ud~e the necessary rail-car use for unloading activity, Ironically~, the solution to all these problems lies just ~m~e~nt over Fr~a~s~ir~'~s left shoulder as he s~i~t~, in h~i~s World War ~11 pap~qerm~qa three or four per month, providing sporadic ~em ~qg~l~oy~, Fraser's operation is doubly ~sym~i~ed because of ~s~t~o~r~- Army barracks office at the head of the Bangor and Em ~qlo~q@ for stevedores who handle ~t~he newsprint a tapioca a powder that continue to be Mack Point's usua~n~) ~comm~o~d- ag~e problems Manufacturers ~4qW~the bulk product, that Aroostook pier. It is, of course, the state of Maine~'s deep- ~P~a ~y~r~qo~6qf~q] ~qs ~i~t~ie~s. Fraser hires his gangs by seniority and has no ire Se~ar~spor~t'~s hires ~d and butter often require storage at water cargo port on Sears island, proposed nearly ~i~o d~o~u~ssho~qt pr~o~b~) ready to the shipping terminal as they await favorable markets years ago, approved twice by Maine voters and still for the ~qen ~w~c~rk~,~q@~q@r~qb filing his crews. "They are plenty and available ships. At Mack Point the nearest storage incomplete because of con~t~im~qied legal action by an en- i~t~y in the ~e says. But work has not been plentiful. Dry cargo across the area of suitable size is ~qf~qtee~-qu~ar~t~er~s of a mile away, vir~onm~e~nt~a~l g~rou~,~q%with a very small Maine const~i~tue~n~- economy~q, ~1~1~1,~q@~Ag~p~,~i~,~er this year has totaled just under 3~5~,~W~0 net tons ~b~l~e~B'~u~n~g that cargo would have to be handled twice, an c~y, the Sierra ~g~"~r~a~ql~qe~q, an ~,r~ate~q8 payrolls of just over $313,000. Tanker ~H~qe traffic at t~h~e pier for Irving Oil and the U.S. Air Force causeway continues but provides no employment for dry cargo he'd ~ql~qa~qk~4q@ handlers. m~a~ir~qd~qa~qnd The problem, Fraser points out, is not ~loc~a~ti~qw not the island lack of work force or lack of materials for import and making ~qn export. The problem i~@ the pier facility itself. The B~&A ~M~1~1 just pier was built i~n the I ~qM_ when ship, were smaller, ~a~in~qe ~qk~qne ~c~3~rgo~e~s were smaller and material handling technology is, and h consisted ~of~a strong back, small wheels, ~ac~arg~o~n~e~t~a~nd ~m~anuf~qac~qt a donkey engine. just wish Mode~q@~n ship-loading facilities, both finger piers and parallel wh~ar~,~@e~s, offer huge storage areas, covered and "~'~i~ql~qh~qa~qm ~~~ open. accessibility to rail and truck haulers and shore- A~d~@~~I~qn~qc~qc~qn based cranes of suitable capacity to handle all types of t~i~o~n organ cargo. At Mack ~P~io~n~t only the rail service ~i~s there. ~c~o~n~s~qt~qr~qo~qc~qt The ~qP~q@~q@ itself is sturdy and is reasonably we~l~l~-m~a~in- port Co~qu~qn ~t~ai~ned I the ~l~i~m~i~i~at~i~o~n~. are obvious- ~qU~ng~, narrow the ~q&~qS~qr~qA Dispute over-mooring rule~-jeopard TWO ~. ~. izes; w od Island dre ERIC W~I~C~I~(LU~N~D ~.~qI~6qA~q7 moorings for e~veryo~@~e, regardless of Caron. "Our ~(~P~O~I~!~c~Y) is consistent boats, Caron said, the city changed management plan does have certain enable larger ~S~l~i~s~ti~-Wr~i~ter residency. ~ ~. ~ith what the state allows... ~. Its definition of "resident" to include preferences that tend to bother some the Pool ~qar "It*$ not ~s~om~e~t~h~li~i~ig that is consis- "It makes it pretty tough to put us anyone ~who owns land In the city or here, but they can be worked out." harbor. BIDDEFORD A ~@ pr~op~?~sed tent with out policy," said Corps in the position where the state ~m~a~I~n~t~al~in~s~ a summer r~e~o~t~s~l~@ ~Bou~t~il~l~er maintains the Corps, City an dredging project Dear Wood Island is spokesman Carl ~Bo~u~t~i~lier~. "There is requires one thing and the fed~s Caron and City Planner Donald Position will not change. He said the me~a nw~qh~qi ~qle being jeopardized because the city somewhat of a misunderstanding require something else," Caron Simard said. the city Is willing to Corps answer to the city - expected r~m~in~t~e~nance and the U.S. Army Corps of here as to what's open and available, added. "That's unfair to the city.", work with the Corps to come up with sometime this month - '!will be a River ~q-on~q*~qt Engineers can't come to an ~a~&ee-~ and our policy Is clear." The City Council recently revised a compromise. That may even mean clarification of the Corps policy." dispute. B~qo~qU m~e~n~t on mooring ~t~P~o~l~ic~l~e~s~. ~4 ~@ ~ ~. I The problem Biddeford faces is its ordinance to meet the state's adjusting the ordinance fu ~.rt~her~, _ e state's r~e~q ~.~v~i~rements may be City officials say they are adher- not unique: several coastal towns In ~Ba~r~b~orm~as~t~er ~l~Aw~s~. which were Caron said. T~h noted the d ing to state laws In charging di~f- the state have challenged ~t~he Corps passed in 1987. Caron said the city "They (Corps) have already &aid different, but ~t~h~ey~*r~e not our because the ~f~er~e~n~t fees for residents and non- policy, which allows the federal currently charges ~t~W per mooring that they'd work with us," be added. policies. We would be remiss in not commercial residents , and In establishing agency to cancel dredging Projects if for residents and ~;~qW for Christopher Hatfield, the Corps presenting our case," he said de~f~o~rd~/S~qaco non- But the W prioritized waiting lists for moor- the towns have prioritized mooring residents and keeps a waiting list for planner In charge of t~he Wood Island ~T~he Wood Island project calls for j~ect is ~a~qn~qo~qt~qh ~i~n~i~;~3~@ I ~q~. ~ ~ ~@ ~.~1 ~ ~. ~ lists even though the state permits moorings which gives priority first project, agreed. the dredging of some 1~6,000 feet of -,I k~qm~q@ th But those state taws don't meet them. to residents. ~, I "Right ~now we're just trying to sand ~a~nd slit to clear a ~ID foot deep the right ~qd~qi with the approval of the Corps, which -Tb~e state and federal laws do not In order to appease the Corps and determine where we want to go," he channel Into Biddeford Pool. City "I just don't has a-policy, of free access to coincide," said City Solicitor ~Ed many summer residents w~ho own said. "The city's new harbor officials say the channel Is needed to ~w~e have to ~qg Boaters not happy with propose $50 dock fee in Portland By Clarke Canfield Guy Gannett Service PORTLAND- Marina opera- tors and recreational boaters are steaming over a proposal under consideration to charge recrea- tional boaters who dock their boats in Portland Harbor. A fee schedule has yet to be determined, but a committee of the Board of Harbor Commissioners is looking closely at charging $50 per 50 feet of dock space next year. Critics say the fees are unfair because only recreational boaters -but not fishermen or commercial vessel operators- will be required to pay to keep their boat at slips or docks in the harbor. Thay also question the need for the fees and say boat owners may stop using slips or go elsewhere to rent dock space when the fees go into effect. "It certainly will influence peop- ple's decision on whether to put their boat in a slip or launch it," said Paul Jenson, manager of Spring Point Marina. Tony Theriault, manager of Channel Crossing Marins, said, "It's discriminatory for one thing. The second thing I'm concerned about is how they're going to spend that money and why." Harbor Commission Gerard St. Cyr said when the user-fee proposal was initially written, it included provisions to assess fees on all vessels, commercial and recrea- tional, that use the harbor. But when the proposal came out of the Legislature giving the commission the authority to assess user fees earlier this year, only recreational boaters were included. St. Cyr agreed it is unfair for only recreational boaters to be charged an extra fee for slip or dock space, but said it is the only system in place now. a Harbor Commission user-fee committee has been meeting with marina operators and others to determine what the fee schedule should be. "We're trying to work with them as closely as we can to make a bad situation livable," St. Cyr. Said, "It's the inequality that upsets me." Steve Hasson said the user fee committee, of which he is chair- man, will make a recommendation by the end of the year on what the fees should be, but that they will not be greater than $50 per 50-foot increment of dock space. He refused to label the new ueser fee law as unfair. "I don't know if it's inequitable. ....the powers that be decided the ones who will pay will be recrea- tional boaters," Hasson said. State Sen. Barbara Gill, R-South Portland, said commercial boats were taken off the list of boats to be assessed because of the "supposed hardships' that now exist in the fishing industry. The issue of user fees began last year when city officials from South Portland and Portland asked the Harbor Commission to find new ways to generate revenue to fund its growing budget, said St. Cyr. The commission is in charge of regulating the harbor and pays for the office of the harbormaster. The commission's 1989-90 budget is $99,699, with each city paying $35,500. The remainder is raised through existing permit and moor- ing fees. The commission's budget this year is up from about $80,000 in 1988-89. Since 1985-86 the commis- sions's annual spending has more than tripled. Earlier this year the commission wrote a proposal to assess fees on all boaters who used slips or dock space in the city. The proposal was then submitted to the Legislature, but by the time it got out of the Committee on Marine Resources and in front of the Legislature as a whole, only recrea- tional boaters were included in the bill. There are now 958 slips for recreational boats in the harbor, Trefry said. If each slip were assessed $50, the commission would collect $47,900 in fees each year. The Harbor Commission was created by the Legislature in the first place, so legislators had to vote to give the commission the power to assess fees. City plans speculation building on pier PORTLAND, ME - A new 50'x80' building could soon be going up on Parcel 11 of the Portland Fish Pier (see diagram). What is unique about the construction os that the building is being built on speculation. Thje project was initiated by city officials to draw more fish processing capacity to the pier, which still has at least six sites available for leasing. The state of Maine is lending the city money for construction. The 4,000-sq-ft building would be nothing more than a shell: a metal skin, two truck bays with roll up doors, a roof, heavy insulation, three-phase exectrical service, six double-glazed openable windows, four insulated exterior passage doors, and a graded gravel floor. Five contractors submitted bids to construct the building. The city's new Fish Pier Authorioty has until eary November to act on those bids. But first, it mush hash through questions on how the speculation project should be set up. A Sept. 25 meeting has been scheduled to discuss options. Up to $250,000 is being made available for the building from the ME Department of Economic and Community Development. But the money is a loan, not a grant. As a Stipulation to obtaining the money, the city must sell the building. Thje non-profit Greater Portland Public Development Commission is being approached to purchase the building, which would leave open the option of leasing the space to processors who did not wast or did not have the financial capability to purchase the building outright. For more information contact Tom Valleau, the city's director of transportation and waterfront facilities, at (207)773-1613. ~0 Promoting the port of Portland Redone marketing study ~qt~qe,~q" Marketing the~.waterfront makes new suggestions By ~C~L~q"~qn ~C~A~N~F~L~E~qM e~ste~d In seeing what kind O~f~d~l~K~us- ~@~0q=~6q=~C~6qMTh~s marketing of bulk ~W~4 Sion we have at the meeting ~q=~4 should be kill to private ~S~t~a~n~qw~r~i~t~a~Ir We interests Such as ~M~e~ni~O~*M~ar~in~e Terminal. ~O~2qV~8qda ~qY~q;. hired last winter C~o~nt~a~lr~e~n~z~e~d cargoes ~a~h~n~u~id be marketed by To attract more ~6qne~s~s to the ~4qm~6qr~-~q3 ~, attracting a leader service to the Port~. ~t rtla~nd~, ~t ~t~y ~Sh~O~L~L~Id for ~$2~5,~0~61 - ~$~6~,000 of which was ~0qC~qt~I~g~.~q1 ~$~p~l~(~'40,ODO to ~3~200~,~O~D~O Portland - to dev~e~. ~q!~q:~q! ~qF~.~W~'~d~-~qb~qy~1~2qZ~.~-~t~qh~r~omo~t~e ~m~a~r~i~t~t~e~-r~el~a~t. ~6q%ke~q@~n~g ad on t~, ~rand services and activities In the ~1~0 Comm~a~ir~c~i~alf~i~sh~i~t~qV The marketing emphasis hops develop a slogan ~suc~t~i ~a~u~s G~qr port~. The revised study is not cost- should be on Promoting the Portland Fish Exchange Northern New Ing any additional money. to fishermen in the ~Gu~lf'~o~f Maine. A Secondary ~q!~2qV~l~q.~y~d~l~q@ The ~6~2~- age report emphasis Should be to develop ~n~e~w berthing In A port marketing study looks at s~qrx ~d~i~ff~e~.~.~.~. Portland and ~S~I~X~q0 Portland done for t~h Waterfront of ~t~h~e~o~6qt~6qf~v Task Force makes those ~P~o~o~s~s~er~e~er ~6qr~i~0qW~* recommendations and I= should continue to others as ways for Port. fishing, passenger ships, m~ark~at on an nd a) s to cruise fines tour boats, ~s~h~ip~bu~l~l~6qL~n~q@ that already operate In New England~, The city Should d and South Portland to and repair. and ~r~e~cr~e~a al boating. lure more business to the ~T~t~e study pieces mom International Marine Terminal. ~l~s~t~. harbor. The study. done b Of Its emphasis on c~o~m~. Martin &Connell ~mer~cia~l ~8qn ~qd a ~h ~ig~t~2q= 'raw ~b~o~a~l~s: The city st~qm~id oor~o~d~w ~c~r~a~e~f~i~n~g a ate$ of ~qWelle~s~l~2q% man., ~t~j think ~i~t~q" ~se~n~ger ~D IS w~a~s~s~e~r~itto~c~i~ty~) c~ial~so~n boat a waterfront visitors' center to promote available tours~, two months ~r~w~p~,~-~,~F~& ~1~0 a marketing t~hose things Tour boats should continue to be promoted by local ~qW~6q=~Y.~I~le~r market"' Ill In turn help Ship. and state ~l~o~u~r~l~s~om agencies~, report was criticized by ~2qr~pa~l~l~oveme~nt builders and recreational t~a~u~sk force members ~a~s ever the first b~oat~In ~Sh~i~pb~o~l~ld~i~n~g and repair of major ~b~i Red, amateurish and draft and that ~V~.~1~qtau Said he thought the section on commercial shipbuilding a~nd repair should be to Bath Iron Works. although the city s~h~i~o~u~l~d ~e~s~s~i~a~l when ~`~I~q_~6q&.et~q:~qi.~qW study will It ha~s U~s~e~q" cargo was the strongest needed. Smelt Shipyards will b~er~i~s~f~i~t by any ~e~l~l~or~t~s be discussed at the task information.' part of the study. that results in increased vessel traffic. tome's meeting next Wed. ~-~7~1~r~b~an~i~o~u~V~a~l~l~e~au~s ~T~he study says that to nesday morning. ~ttr~act container-ship ~1 think this report is a great feeder service to Portland. the port Recreational boating~: Portland and South Por~d~ar~o improvement over the first draft must provide the right facilities and should provide more recreational boat berths~ and that It has useful information," develop an Image as being ~comp~e~t.~l~. moorings, but should also ~d~i~s~o~n~ur~a~g~e, marine Said Portland waterfront director ~d~e~q"~l~o~pm~en~t that will conflict with commercial development~, Thomas V~a~l~le~a~u~. ~"We~'ve ~6qV~t a ~,~a~. pretty good product ~a~n~d I'm ~ve in both cost and service. ~?b~s of Portland creates economic bene. The study's tour Iboat section When ~t~h~p Waterfront Task mote the different ~&~t~o~" ~o~f~t~b~e ~P~O~M ~q=0 must educate &hipper# to fits for the state ~o~f~f~i~l~a~i~n~e~.~" Says that nearly 20 tour and charter Force met in late August, members ~~~ts of using Portland and ~T~he commercial fishing "pod boats now use the port. The mar. blasted the first report for cr~itic~iz~. The estimated budget ~f~o~r each m~~~~~~ Inca one o~f~t~h~e two feeder of the S~tud~X contains no surprises, keting thrust for tour boats should In the citys ban an non-marine services To New England to re~qf~ated port segment. ~ac~cor~d~i~n t~h~e start V~alle~au said. The study recom- be to Increase the utilization Of the development, which was stud& would be between ~q1~2q2~,~000~. the port. mends Promoting the Portland Fish existing boats rather ~t~ha~n a~6qZroved by voters ~In a referendum ~$70, 00 to attract container cargo image could be enhanced, ~F attract' 987~. Members also complained business; ~$3~0~,~0~DO~-~540~,~0~D~O for co~n~a~- the ~tu~ ~dy says, by adopting a ~a~) ~-~6q=~ge throughout the Gulf of ~I~ng new boats to the port, ~t~h~e study that the first report offered o in d to ~c~o~n~u~n~u ~* In merc~ia~ll fishing; $~30~.~qW~0~4~qM~.~0~00 to that "indicates the port's ~2qX~2q=~,~. the brthi~.~9~f.~.~Wt~j~.~`~qR~V=~v ~' ~q'~a~-~. ~- - - ~I~r~m~s that were not eased for, ~su~2qg ~o~o~q; attract passenger ships: and serving Northern New ~h ~f~l~a~he~rm ~n. ~- ty should consider leasing ~&~.~" ~I~s t~o ~T~he c~i ~r~fro~nt ~v~i~al~t~o~n~e cell- recommendations that the city $30 000 ~$40~,~O~qW for mat and staff ~~o~~~q=s~l ~qE~q@~W~qf~i~q,~-~t~k ~r a were ~&~qW buy report Run ~i a study adds, to ~6qZ~qa~qi for a waterfront v~i~alt~o~qW ~c~a~n~. to Thedp~a~s~se~nger Ship section of ~t~qs~q@~_t~qb~oe increase ~'~V~qa'~"a~n~e~t ~8q=~t~1~q!`~.~Od~4qP Northern New E~n~g~l~and~"~@~. "serving the ~stu ~y says the port must Sell ~v~i~s~i~t~o~r~s~'~a~w~a~re~n~e~s~s ~o~f~t~he t~h~e differ. - ter to promote ~t~he harbor tour bad Northern New E~n~qf~i~a~n~qd~*: ~"North~. Itself to cruise ship operators as So ent boat services that aft available. The report also failed to do~cu~. industry. er~ New E~ngl~a~nd~s International efficient ~a~nd profitable call that Concerning ~s~Wpbu~f~ld d re~. me~nt several things that the com. "This budget world be reduced business partner; and "your ga. ~2q=se~n~ger~s like. ~7~1~ke study does not pair, the Study says =-boll ~W~i~tt~ee had asked for, data on cargo after the first year or two as the teway to the world. rain a list of cruise ships that Works should continue ~and fish landings, marketing cost marketing effort would become ~~e study said a secondary ~slo~. Stop in other New England ports itself ~f~or big ships. The =I ~6qV~. estimates, and strategies to market even more directed," t~h~e study con. ~~~ could be developed that "Indi. that might be lured here in the P~yards and re~pa~l~i services will ben. the port c~ludes~. 'Me exception ~i~s for ~c~o~m~. cates the port's interest ~In Re future, but V~a~lle~au said a list would e~f~it from other marketing efforts ~mercial ~f~i~s~l~i~ing; if efforts to pro. Maine ~o pa~n~ql~es~.~" Among probably be compiled soon. that result in increased use of t~h~e The updated report provides ~0 were "him to t~e the Portland Fish Exchange to A ~I~6qm~e~2qr~n~qo~qg~or~t a d Two cruise ships, the Bermuda harbor. ~- data on fish and cargo, ~a~nd ~*~a~d~- buyers am Successful, it might be ~~a~~~~~ link ~w ~o~l~." It also Star and the Y~o~r~ld~ow~c~, Clipper To help ~f~0cr~eat~i~o~n~al boating. the mates that the ~d will have to attractive to expand the promotion. Suggested a campaign to educate made Strips in Portland last study suggests more berthing Rod spend between ~q7~14~0.~000 a~n~d &I budget available to Increase ~th~e ~q,p~qer~qe that 'using ~qt~qhe port ~qmer~q. ~qs~qnoori~qn~qg for pleasure cr~qa~qlr~qL ~q$~qZ~qO~qD~q.~q0~q0~q0 a year to Property ~qP~qr~qo~q- geographic c~qov~qer~qeg~qe.~q* H. Permit Simplification 1. Identify actions taken by your CZK program to simplify the permit process or other decision-making processes. If possible, quantify any time or cost savings associated with simplification efforts. Maine's 1988 Natural Resources Protection Law consolidated.. four resource management laws with overlapping standards -- Coastal Wetlands; Freshwater Wetlands; Great Ponds; and Alteration of Rivers, Streams and Brooks -- in one statute. Administration of the latter was transferred to the DEP from the Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. One application form is now submitted to the DEP in place of separate applications previously required under each law, thus minimizing confusion and streamlining review procedures. To make it possible to conduct certain activities under the Natural Resources Protection Act without the time and expense of filing permit applications, and to help reduce a large backlog of applications at the DEP, the Board of Environmental Protection adopted Permit-by-Rule Regulations, effective February, 1989. The Regulations identify activities that should not significantly affect wetlands and waterbodies if carried out according to pres cribed standards, such as minor disturbance of soil adjacent to a wetland or water body or installation of intake pipes or water monitoring devices. They require only that a notice be filed with the DEP. (See 11DEP Issue Profile" reproduced below.) The DEP Land Bureau also developed procedures for pre- application meetings between applicants for DEP permits under the Site Location of Development Act or the Natural Resources Protection Act and Land Bureau staff. (See 11DEP Fact Sheet" reproduced below.) The pre-ap meetings promote better project planning and minimize waste effort by both the applicant and the DEP. See also the discussion of the Corps of Engineers' Maine State Program General Permit under "Ocean and Coastal Use Management." 57 DEP ISSUE PROFILE Is any additional Information required by DEP Permit by Rule (NRPA) Yes. A location map of the project site is required and, in the case of maintennce, repair, or replacement of a structure, one or more photographs documenting the condidtion of the existing revise& March 1989 contact (207) 289-2111 structure must also be submitted. Is there a fee for permit by rule? Background No. Permit-by-rule regulations became effective on February 15, 1989. for certain activities covered under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). The regulations identify activities When can I begin work? taking place in or adjacent to wetlands and waterbodies that should not significantly affect the Upon DEPs receipt of a complete and accurate form, you may begin work unless the timing is environment if carried out according to standards contained in, the regulations. A person Proposing restricted by one of the standards. (For instance, soil disturbance is not allowed between to do work that qualifies for permit by rule is required only to file notice with the Department of March 1 and April 15.) You may wish to send the notice certified mail/return recipt requested, Environmental Protection (DEP). but this is not required. What is the Intent of permit by rule? It the notice is found to be deficient, DEP will contact you within 10 days of receiving the notice. Permit by rule is intended to save applicants the time and expense of filing a permit application Work begun within that 1 0-day period is at risk in such cases. Therefore, you may wish to with DEP, while at the same lime providing direction in the form of standards as to how a work wait until the end of the 1 0-day period before starting work. activity must be carried out. DEP will not contact you unless the notice is deficient. However, a staff member from DEP, the What activities may be eligible for permit by rule? Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, or the Department of Marine Resources may inspect the The following activities may be eligible: site to determine if the work was carried out in compliance with the rule. disturbance of soil material adjacent to a wetland or waterbody How long Is the permit valid? placement of intake pipes and water-monitoring devices The permit is valid for 2 years, provided you comply with all the standards. If your activity is not maintenance, repair, and replacement of structures complete at that lime. you may file another notice provided the regulations have not been revised to placement of moorings exclude your activity. movement of rocks or vegetation by hand placement of outfall pipes (including ditches and drain tile) If I qualify for permit by rule, do I need other permits? placement of riprap Perhaps. Permit by rule does not take the place of any other local, state, or federal approvals you construction of crossings (utility lines, pipes, and cables) may need. In specific instances, activities may require a shoreland zoning permit from your town, construction of stream crossings (bridges, culverts, and fords) a lease from the Bureau of Public Lands (207-289-3061) if your work extends onto state-owned maintenance, repair, and minor modification of state transportation facilities submerged lands, or a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(207-623-8367). If I propose one of the activities listed above, how do I know If I qualify for What If I don't quality for permit by rule? permit by rule? If your activity does not quality for permit by rule, you must file a complete application form First, you should obtain from DEP copies of the NRPA and the Permit-by-Rule Standards under the NR PA. These forms are available from DEP's Bureau of Land Quality Control. (DEP Rule Chapter 305) and turn to the section for your proposed activity in the Permit-by- Rule Standards. Where can I get additional information? For additional information, contact a Land Bureau staff member at the DEP office closest to you: Second, read the applicability section at the lop of the page, which describes in further detail what activities are included and where they are included. For example, the movement of rocks or * South Portland -- 21 Vocational Drive, South P vegetation by hand (Section 6) applies only to work using nonmotorized equipment and does not (207)767-4763 (changing location in spring 1989) apply to work in coastal or freshwater wetlands. * Augusta -- State House Station 17. Augusta. M Third. read ail the standards contained in the section pertaining to your activity as well as all the (207) 289-2111 standards in the 'All Projects' section beginning on page 5. If you can meet allot the standards, you are eligible for permit by rule. Bangor -- 106 Hogan Road, Bangor, ME 0440 (207) 941-4570 If I am eligible, what's the next step? You must file notice of your proposed activity on a form provided by DEP. The two-part form Presque Isle -- 1235 Central Drive, Presque Isle, ME 04769 enables you to submit one copy to DEP and to keep one copy for your records. (207) 764-2044 L/89-3 printed on recycled paper DEP FACT SHIEET t@ @W,@ Land Bureau Pre-application Meeting revise& March 1989 contact: (207) 289-2111 Background The Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Land Quality Control has developed procedures for pre-application meetings between applicants for DEP permits under the Site Location of Development Act or the Natural Resources Protection Act and DEP Land Bureau staff. Purpose The purpose of pre-ap meetings is to examine a project before a final design is committed to and before a great deal of money is spent to make sure that it is designed to minimize environmental impacts. Specifically, pre-ap meetings are intended (1) to encourage information exchange about the project early in project planning; and (2) to help the applicant understand the process, his/her responsibilities, and areas of particular concern relative to the project. Pre-ap meetings also provide an opportunity to identify and discuss potential trouble spots in a project and allow DEP staff to request necessary data or studies. Process (1) Determine which law and regulations govern your application and obtain copies of both from DEP. (2) Forward to the appropriate division director (Site Location OR Natural Resources) three copies of the following documents: preliminary site plan, soils information (where relevant), a regional map with the site marked, and a brief project description. (3) Prepare for a meeting with DEP staff. Following receipt and review of your documentation, a DEP staff member will contact you to arrange a mutually convenient meeting time. Applicants initiate this process and play an important role. To ensure that a meaningful two-way dialogue takes place and that the pre-ap meeting is fruitful, you must come to the meeting fully prepared to describe your project. Furthermore, you must be familiar with the applicable law and regulations before the meeting so that you know what your responsibilities are and what questions to ask. Contact For more information, phone DEP's Land Bureau at (207) 289-2111 or write to: Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land Quality Control, (Division of Site Location OR Division of Natural Resources), State House Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333. Note If you wish to schedule a pre-ap meeting with another DEP bureau, contact that bureau directly. If your project requires a permit from more than one DEP bureau and you wish to schedule a pre-ap meeting, contact the Office of the Commissioner at (207) 289-2812. LF/89-1 printed on recycled paper 59 Mao M DEPARTNIEN1 Of THE ARK-1Y 2 -ite--waitinei for a request fron tlie Corps in guch cases only s-erves to delay fbe CorPs Jecisicn nakinq or:)cess. (rh i s inclu0es individuals who are orop,3sinq work that Moes not renuire a State nermit.) Permit 140: GP-39 Reissue Date: May 6, 1988 Copies of the reports prepired by the Corvs followinn each periodic review of the State's regulatory acencies' files, as Name of Applicant: General Public Fxoira*tion Date: May 6, 1993 well as copies of each application reviewed, will lie sent by the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY GENERAL PERMIT Corps to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental STATE OF @%INE Protection Agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The Corps will rule a Project ineldgible under this general permit Referring to a Public Notice dated 4 February 1988 to reissue the and will begin its individual permit review Procedures if any one of these three agencies, within 10 working days of their receipt 11aine State Program General Permit to perform the following work, of of this material, expresses concern within their area of upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, Pursuant to ex pertise, states the species or resource that could be impacted Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers by the Project and describes the impacts that, either and Harbors Act of 1899, The General Public is hereby authorized individ@ally or cumulatively, will 1@e more than minimal. This by the Secretary of the Army, subject to the conditions contained notice within 10 working days may be verbal and is not required in this permit, to perform work that involves the following to be fully documented. It will be confirmed within 10 activitA@Ps in Maine, without obtaining individual approval from additional calendar days from the date of the verbal comment, the Corps of Engineers: (1) the discharge of dredged or fill with a written response. The written response need not be fully material into waters of the United States; and (2) work or structures documented. The intent of the 10 working day verbal notification in or affecting navigable waters of the United Stat@-s. is to allow the Corps to give timely notification to the Procedure: applicant that an individual Corps permit may be required and that the work should not proceed until further notice. (An individual that fails to heed this notification runs the risk of Work in Maine that receives all required Federal and non-Federal being directed to remove the work or structures, as well as other (A permits/licenses and that meets all of this permit's other penalties.) If the Federal agency subsequently notifies the C:) conditions may proceed without an individual permit from the 'Corps that. the concern has been saisfied, either through the Corps of Engineers, unless the Corps exercises its case-by-case review of additional information submitted to the Corps by the discretionary authority under Condition 2. By eliminating the applicant or through other means, the Corps may elect to need for individual Corps approvals in appropriate cases, this reinstate the project's eligibility under the general permit and general permit is designed to relieve the Public of unnecessary terminate its review. delays and paperwork, while allowing more Federal regulatory resources to be directed toward the review of work that has more Conditions; than minimal consequences for the aquatic environment. 1. That no work may be performed under this general permit The Corps of Engineers will periodically review all applications unless and until all required local, State and Federal permits, received by the State of Maine's Department of Environffienta I licenses and are obtained; this includes, but is Protection and Land Use Regulatory Commission. During these t tcertifications not limi ed o, State Water Ouality Certification and written reviews, all work subject to Corps jurisdiction--including any concurrence from the State as to the work's consistancy with the work found exempt under State programs--will be categorized by State Coastal Zone Management Program, whenever applicable. the Corps as to (1) work that is clearly eligible under this general permit and requires no further action by the Corps; (2) 2. That, irrespective of whether a proposal meets the other proposals that warrant further study by the Corps (the applicant conditions of this rps of Engineers retains might be contacted for additional permit, the Co information), (3) projects that discretionary authority to.require s ubmission of an application are obviousl)A ineligible under the terms of this general permit--either because the type and to subject the proposal to all individual permit review of work is one of those described procedures, whenever the Corps of Engineers determines that the in Condition 3 of this permit, or because the work fails to satisfy one or more other conditions: and (4) projects over which potential consequences of the proposal warrant this review. the Corps should exercise the discretionary authority described in Condition 2 of this permit to require an application. 3. That Corps approval procedures for the following work are not altered by this general permit: this work will continue to bn: of require submis@,i. an application to, and written Individuals who are planning work within Corps jurisdiction that authorization'from, the Corps of EnV i_@,@@is before the work may is obviously. ineligible 'under this general permit should submit proceed: an application to the Corps at the earliest practical 3 4 a- Work within the Saint John and Saint Croix River i. Breakwaters, groins, artificial reefs and jetties. basins that requires approval of the International Joint j . Any activity that would impinge upon the value of Commission. This includes any temporary or permanent use, any National Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, or any area obstruction or diversion of international boundary waters which administered by the National Park Service of the Department of could affect the natural flow or levels of waters on the Canadian the Interior. side of the line, as well as any construction or maintenance of remedial works, protective works, dams or other obstructions in k. Any activity that, as determined by the Corps of waters downstream from boundary waters, when the activity could Engineers, may affect a threatened or endangered species, as raise the natural level of water on the Canadian side of the identified under the Endangered Species Act, or the critical boundary. @abitat of such species. This exclusion will enable the Corps to initiate the formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any Service or National Marine Fisheries Service that is required inland wetland where the wetland is separated from a nontidal under Section 7 of the Act. pond. lake, river or stream by a man-made dike, natural river berm, or other barrier; and is not regulated by the State. 1. Any activity that would adversely affect the C. Discharges of dredged or fill material for river Allagash Wilderness Waterway or occur in a component of any crossings and dam projects that are exempted from Maine National Wild and Scenic River System. Department of Environmental Protection jurisdiction by Maine's Stream Alteration Act_ This includes crossings associated with M. Projects that require an Environmental Impact Public'works projects which do riot alter more than a total of 300 Statement which will either be prepared by the Corps of Engineers feet in any mile of shore; and private crossings or dam projeqts or for which the Corps is to be a cooperating agency. that alter not mo're than a total of loo feet (including bpth banks); i.e. discharges for this State exempted work still n. Projects of national concern. This exclusion is require individual Corps approval. invoked on a case-by-case basis and represents, in essence, a special class of projects that receive particular attention in d. The discharge of any dredged or fill material into Corps' decisions on whether to exercise discretionary authority (Condition 2) to require individual applications for work that any other waters or wetlands not regulated by the State, as well otherwise meets all of, this permit's conditions. - While a precise as any structures or work not regulated by the State which are located in or which affect navigable waters of the United States definition is not. possible, this category of work normally (this latter category of waters includes all tidal waters, the includes but is not limited to, the following examples: projects Kennebec River inland to Moosehead Lake, and the Penobscot River that could cause an unreasonable interference with navigation; to the confluence of its east and west branches at Medway). significant wetland fills; major power plants, shipping facilities and oil refineries: work that could affect New e. Any activity associated with new boating facilities Hampshire or Canadian waters; major commercial, residential or or with the extension of the areal limits of existing boating industrial developments; and work that couldadversely affect facilities. For the purpose of this condition, "boating historic, cultural or.archeological-sites.-listed or eligible for .facilities" are marinas, yacht clubs, boat clubs and other listing in the National Register of Historic Places or sites entities that rent or sell mooring space. listed or eligible for listing in the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. f. Any activity within the horizontal limits of any Corps' navigation project (see attached map for locations of 4. That whenever the Corps of Engineers notifies an ,els these projects), as well as any activity that will cause vess applicant that an individual Corps' permit. may be required, all to be docked or moored within these limits. authorization under this general permit is voided and no work may be started unless and until the individual Corps permit is g. The discharge of dredged material into waters obtained and the Corps notifies the applicant that further review oceanward oftthe baseline from which the territorial sea is has shown that the work may proceed under this general permit. measured (see p. 10) 5. That any structure or work which extends closer to the h. Improvement dredging projects: This includes horizontal limits of any Corps navigation project than a distance dredging that exceeds the depth of prior dredging or that occurs of three times the project's authorized depth (see attached map in an area not dredged before. for the locations of these projects) will be subject to removal ;:.-,at the owner's expense prior to.. &,ny future Corps' dredging. 6 6. That existing unauthorized fill, structures or work will be evaluated at the time of discovery, for eligibility under this whole or in part. general permit. Applications will be required for any such fill, structures or work-found ineligible under the general permit; 13. That all activities authorized herein shall, if they these applications will be processed under standard Corps permit involve, during their construction or operation, any discharge of procedures. pollutants into waters of the United States, be at all times consistent with applicable water quality standards, effluent 7. That this general permit cannot be used for piecemeal limitations and standards of performance, prohibitions and pretreatment standards and management practices established general permit. valid for any activity that is part of an overall pursuant t t dredge or fill activities or other piecemeal work, nor is this o he Clean Water Act. of 1972 (P.L. 92-500; 86 Stat. 816) or pursuant to State and local law. - project for which the Corps has determined an individual permit is required. 14. That when the activity authorized herein involves a discharge during its construction or operation, of any pollutant 8. That all temporary fill such as that used for access (including dredged or fill material), into waters of the United roads and/or cofferdams must be placed on geotextile fabric laid States, the authorized activity shall, if applicable water on existing wetland grade. The slope of all temporary fills must be stabilized to prevent erosion, through such means as placing quality standards are revised or modified during the term of this weighted geotextile fabric on the slope. The temporary fill permit, be modified, if necessary, to conform with such revised or modified water quality standards within 6 months of the shall be removed completely upon completion of the project, and effective date of any revision or modification of water quality shall bp placed upland in a matter that will prevent its later erosion@@and transport to a waterway or wetland. The temporary standards, or as directed by an implementation plan contained in fill area shall be restored to its approximate original contours such modified or revised standards, or within such longer period of time as the Division Engineer, in consultation with the (but not higher). Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances. 9. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control devices, such as geotextile silt fences or other devices capable of filtering *the fines involved, shall be installed and properly maintained to 15. That the permittee agrees to make every reasonable (A effort to prosecute the construction or operation of the work minimize impacts during construction. These devices must be authorized herein in a manner so as to minimize any.adverse removed upon completion of work and stabilization of disturbed areas. The sediment collected by these devices must also be impact on fish wildliIfe and natural environmental values. removed and placed upland, in a manner that will prevent its . i later erosion and transport to a waterway or wetland. 16. That the permittee agrees that he/she will prosecute the construction of work authorized herein in a manner as to minimize 10. That all areas of wetlands which are disturbed during any d-egradation of water quality. construction by excavation and/or temporary fill shall be restored to their approximate original elevation (but not hic erl 17. ' That the permittee shall perTnit the Division Engineer or j@h and condition by careful protection, and/or removal, and his authorized representative(s) or designee(s) to make periodic replacement of existing soil and vegetation. inspections at any time deemed necessary in order to assure that the activity being performed under authority of this permit is in 11. That all crossings, whether temporary or permanent, of', accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed herein. In waterbodies must be suitably culverted, bridged or otherwise addition, for maintenance dredging work, the permittee may be designed to prevent the restriction of and to withstand expected required, at the Division Engineer's discretion, to submit high flows. post-dredging survey drawings. 12. That all activities authorized herein shall be 18. That the permittee shall maintain the structure or work consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit; and that authorized herein in good condition. any activitifs not authorized herein shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit which may result in 19. That this per7nit does not convey any property rights, the modification, suspension or revocation of this permit, in either in real estate or material, or any exclusive privileges; whole or in part, as set forth specifically in Condition 20 and that it does not authorize any injury to property or invasion hereto, and in the institution of such legal proceedings as the of rights or any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or United States Government may consider.appropriatL&, whether or not regulations. this permit bas been previously modified, suspended or revoked ina'1-7.1: 8 20. That this permit may be either modified, suspended or 29. That no attempt shall be made by the permittee to revoked in whole or in part pursuant to the policies and prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable procedures of 33 CPR 325.7. waters at or adjacent to the activity authorized by this permit. 21. That if the Government, in making a determination 30. That if the display of lights and signals on any regarding any work's eligibility under this permit, has relied on structure or work authorized herein is not otherwise provided for the information and data which a permittee has provided, and if, by law, such lights and signals as may be prescribed by the subsequent to that determination, such Information and data prove United States Coast Guard shall be installed and maintained by to be false, incomplete or inaccurate, the permittee's authority and at the expense of the permittee. to perform the work under this permit shall be invalid and the lGovernment may, in addition, institute appropriate legal 31. That the permittee, upon receipt of a notice of proceedings. All work described on the application and drawings revocation of this permit or upon its expiration before submitted to the State, including any revisions requested by the completion of the authorized structure or work, shall, without Corps of Engineers, must be performed for the authorization under expense to the United States and in such time and manner as the this general permit to be valid. Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the waterway to its former conditions. If the 22. That any modification, suspension, or revocation of this permittee fails to comply with the direction of the Secretary of permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages against. the Army or his authorized representative, the Secretary or his the United States. designee may restore the waterway to its former condition, by 1@@ contract or otherwise, and recover the cost thereof from the 23. That. if the activity authorized herein is not completed permittee. on or before the expiration date of this permit, this authorization, if not previously revoked or specifically 32. That the permittee hereby recognizes the possibility extended, shall automatically expire. that the structure permitted herein may be subject to damage by wave wash from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does 24. That this permit does not authorize or approve the not relieve the permittee from taking all proper steps to insure construction of any structures which require authorization or- the integrity of the structure permitted herein and the safety of approval by the Congress. the boats moored hereto from damage by wave wash and the permittee shall not bold the United States liable for any such 25. That if and when the permittee desires to abandon the damage. activity authorized herein, unless such abandonment is part of a transfer procedure by which the permittee is transferring his 33. That heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed interests herein to a third party, he/she must restore the area on mats. to a condition satisfactory to the Division Engineer. 34- That the activity shall not "take" a threatened or 26. That there be no unreasonable interference with endangered species, as identified under the Endangered Species navigation by the existence or use of the activity authorized Act, or destroy or modify the critical habitat of such species. herein. 16 U.S.C. 1532 (18) states that the term "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, bunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 27. That if the permittee, during prosecution of the work collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct. authorized herein, encounters a previously unidentified archaeological or other cultural resource that might. be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, be/she The following additional conditions apply to any discharge of shall immediately notify the Division Engineer. dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States: 28. That this permit does not authorize the interference 35. That discharges of dredged or fill material into waters with any existing or proposed Federal project and that the of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the permittee shall not be entitled to compensation for damage or use of other practical alternatives. injury to the structure or work authorized herein which may be caused by or result from existing or future operations undertaken 36. That any such discharge will be carried out in by the United States in the public interest. conformity with the goals and objectives of the EPA Guidelines established pursuant to Section 404 (b) of the FWPCA and published in 40 CM-1-10'.: 9 37. That any such discharge will consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 38. That the fill created by any such discharge will be properly maintained to prevent erosion and other non-point sources of pollution. 39. That discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. 40. That discharges shall notirestrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters). 41* That if the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and or the restriction of its flow, shall be minimized. 42@'@ That discharges in wetland areas are not permitted whenever other practical alternatives exist which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem and which would not hhve other-significant adverse environmental consequences. 43. That discharges into breeding areas for migratory .waterfowl,shall be avoided. STRICT @ENGI ER f DATE Enclosures: "Notes on the Territorial Sea Baseline and the Attached Maps- Maps of the Territorial Sea Baseline (5) Location Map Corps of Engineers Navigation Projects Financial assistance for preparation of this report was provided by a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. N I 3 6668 14103 5180 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I