Evaluation of the enforcement of four Maine environmental statutes

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

Coastal Zone
Information
Center

EVALUATION OF THE

ENFORCEMENT OF FOUR MAINE

ENVIR@@ONMENTAL STATUTES

COASTAL ZONE

IN FORTM ATION C-ENTER
F
KFM
114
29
E93
1981
M
354
.Zq
@E93
1981

arlhur lerman associat6s
114 State Street
resource planning, research & analysis Augusta, Maine 04330
207-6229-9471

EVALUATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT

OF FOUR MAINE ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES

prepared for:

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

August, 1981

Project Staff: Arthur Lerman, Project Manager
Peter Lawrence, Project Investigator
Donald Meagher, Project Investigator

Contract Administrator: John Bastey, DEP

Financial assistance for preparation of this document was
provided by a grant from MAINE'S COASTAL PROGP-AM,.through
funding provided by U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of
Coastal Zone Management, under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, as amended.

TABLE OF C014TENTS page

Executive Summary iii

1.0 Introduction I
1.1 General Background 1
1.2 Project Purpose 3
1.3 Legislative History 5
1.31 Site Location of Development Law 5
1.32 Alteration of Coastal Wetlands Law 7
1.33 Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act 8
1.34 Solid Waste Management Act 9
2.0 Compliance With the Laws 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Case Study Selection 12
243 Method of Investigation 14

Table 1 Case Study, Community
Characteristics 15

Figure 1 Case Study Communities
and Maine's Coastal Zone 16
Figure 2 DEP Enforcement District 17
Regional Offices
2.31 Permit Application and Approval 18

2.32 Identification and Documentation of
Statutory Non-Compliance 20
2.33 Compliance With Terms and Conditions 22
2.34 Solid Wast e Management 23
2.4 Case Study Results 24
2.41 Wells- 26

2.42 Brunswick 44

2.43 Camden 57
2.44 Winte#ort 68

2.45 Deer Isle 78

2.46 Pembroke 89

2.5 Findings'of Compliance Investigation 96
3.0 Effectiveness of Administrative Systems @109

3.1 Introduction 109
3.2 General Background 110

3.3 Bureau of Land Quality Control
3.4 Division of Review and Planning 112
3.5 Division of Enforcement 113

3.6 Attorney General's Office
3.7 Department of Marine Resources 119
3.8 State Planning Office 121

3.9 Findings of Administrative Systems
Investigations 123

4.0 Re c o=en da t i ons 132

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 Introduction

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the
enforcement of four Maine environmental statutes in
terms of their effectiveness in protecting Maine's
coastal resources. These laws are the Site Location of
Development Law, the Alteration of Coastal Wetlands
Law, the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act, and the Solid
Waste Management Act.

Four basic questions answered in the course of
this study were:

1. Do local and state administrative systems review
all coastal development , activities which are
regulated by these laws?

2. When construction permits are approved, denied
or aranced with conditions, are the state and
local enforcement mechanisms effective in ensur-
ing compliance with those decisions?

3. 1n cases where enforcement does not ensure
compliance, are significat environmental
impacts likely to result?

4. What measures would be most effective in improv-
ing the present enforcement situation and ensur-
ing compliance with these four environmental
laws?

A brief legislative history and description of
the fundamental points of the four laws under

iii

reviewed is provided. These descriptions are intended
to give the reader a flavor of what the laws entail
in order to better understand subsequent discussion
in this report.

2.0 Compliance with the Laws

One of the primary objectives of this study was to
determine the extent of compliance with the four laws
under review which regulate human activity along the
coast of Maine. No such analysis has been made since
the laws became effective.

This portion of the study attempts to answer a
I
number of questions in relation to the laws:

- Are necessary state and local permits and approvals
being obtained for activities regulated by these
laws?

- Are conditions applied to permits and approvals
being met?

- If the law is not being complied with, why is this
the case?

- Is there any regional variation in degree of
compliance?

Do apparent violations of the laws result in signifi-
cant impacts on.the coastal envir6nment?

In an attempt to limit the geographic scop e of the
project to a manageable size while retaining a comprehen-
sive coastal perspective, a case study approach was
adopted. Six municipalities were selected for intensive
investigation. Results from detailed case studies com-
bined with more general research conducted on a regional
and coast-wide basis serve as the basis for the findings
presented later in this report.

The first task of the study was the selection of
case study communities. The objective was to choose.
communities which reflect a reasonably representative
sample of the coastal area. The municipalities of Wells,
Brunswick, Camden, Winterport, Deer Isle, and Pembroke 1i
were selected for detailed study.

The investigation of compliance with the four laws
in the six case study communities focused on two major
areas: 1. compliance by obtaining the appropriate permits
and approvals; and 2. compliance by satisfying the terms
.and conditions of permits and approved plans.

One phase of the study required a methodology to
answer the following question in each case study commu-
nity: Have activities, which are regulated under the laws
occurred in the absence of an approved permit application
and plan? The answer to this question involved a two step
process: first, an identification of all activities for
which approval had been obtained; and, second, review of
municipal records and on-site investigation to reveal.
additional regulated activities for which permits had not
been-obtained.

The determination of -compliance with terms and
conditions of approvals and permits, including the con-
struction of a project according to approved plans, was

approached from two perspectives: to what extent do
the responsible enforcement agents conduct inspections
to ensure such compliance; and to what extent does
such compliance actually occur?

The evaluation of the performance of enforcement
agents was based on a review of municipal and DEP
files and discussions with the enforcement personnel.
The extent to which compliance with conditions of
approval actually occurs was arrived at through the
review of project files, discussions with enforcement
agents, and field investigations.

The results of the case study investigations are
presented in detail on a community basis. The format
of these descriptions starts with a brief discussion
of the physical and culcural character of the comun-
ity. In each case, an effort was. made to highlight
factors which might influence the pattern, rate, or
type of development with that community.

The body of each case study describes the
history of permic. application review and compliance
inspections pertaining to the site Location of
Development, Alteration of Coastal Wetlands, Shore-
land Zoning, and Solid Waste Disposal Laws in each

respective community. This history is summarized in
two tables for each communy.

Finally, each case study icludes observations
and conclusions by the consulants for each respective
community. These remarks are based upon our exper-
ience with that particular community as well as more
general coastal-wide information obtained from dis-
cussions with state and local enforcement personnel.

2.5 Compliance Investigation Findings

The following findings are based on the results
of the six community case studies and extensive
discussions with people from across Maine's coastal
area. The case studies provided a quantitative exam-
ination of the compliance situation within a small
but diverse sample of coastal communities. The
results of the interviewing were more qualitative in
nature and played an important role in the formula-
cion of findings.

1. Between 10% and 20% of the development activity
within Maine's coastal zone has occurred without
obtaining the necessary state and local apporvals

under the Site Location, Coastal wetlands, and Shore-
land Zoning Laws.

2. Non-compiance with the Laws is the result of
both ignorance and attitude.

3. The degree of compliance wich the laws has been
improving over the past few years.

4. Local officials and individuals are not familiar
with the specific requirements of the laws.

5. Non-compliance with terms and conditions of
approval has occurred at a race greater than 30%.

6. No inspection of approved projects

for with conditions of approvals has been
conducted.

vii

7. The results of investigation into the environ-
mental consequences of non-compliance are inconclu-
sive.

8. It is difficult to draw definite conclusions
concerning the regional variation of instances of
non-compliance

9. Compliance with the Solid Waste Management Act
has improved sigificantly over the past few years,
bu there is still room for major improvement.

3.0 Effectiveness of Administrative Systems

The second major task of this study involved the
evaluation of the administrative systems which are
responsible for enforcing the four laws. The basic
questions to be addressed include:

- Why have problems in relation co compiliance with
the four laws occured?

- Did -most problems with the administration of the
Site Location, Coastal Wetlands, and Solid Waste
Management Laws occur before the DEP's review and
enforcement staffs were expanded in 1979?

- How effective are the current administrative
systems?

A brief description of the administrative struc-
ture responsible for enforcing the four laws is
given for the Division of Review and Planning and the
Division of Enforcement of DEP's Bureau of Land

viii

Quality Control, the Natural Resources Section of the
Attorney General's Office, the Coastal Warden Service
of the Department of Marine Resources , and the Maine
State Planning Office.

The following findings concerning the adminis-
trative structure are based primarily on two sources
of information. An extensive series of interviews was
conducted with people involved with all aspects of
the administration of the laws, including personnel

of the DEP, State Planning Office, Attorney General's
Office, Department of Marine Resources, municipal
officers, and private individuals who have familiar-
ity with the administration of these laws. Material
relevant to these questions was also reviewed. This
included annual enforcement reports and DEP and State
Planning Office files.

Findings of the Administrative Systems Investigations:

1. The Land Bureau of the DEP has never had the
resources necessary to effectively meet its enforce-
ment responsibilities.

2. Public cooperation has been a significant ele-
ment in enforcement efforts to date.

3. The Enforcement: Division and the Attorney Gen-
eral's Office do prioritize their responsibil-
ities in an effort to manage their time efficiently.

4. In the absence of an understanding of the
enforcemenc staffing situation, some members of the
general public have become disillusioned with the
DEP.

The level of staffing of Assistant Attorneys
General is not sufficient to satisfy the demand for
Legal action by the DEP.

6. DEP enforcement personnel are reluctant to refer
cases to the Assistant Attorneys General.

7. The expansion of the Enforcement Division's
staff in 1979 is just beginning to have an effect on
the effectiveness of enforcement.

8. Existing staffing levels have limited the degree
of cooperation possible between the Division of Review
and Planning and the Division of Enforcement in regards
to enforcement.

9. The documentation of violations is a difficult
and time consuming process.

10. DEP enforcement of the Solid Waste Management
Act emphasizes the desirability of volunteer com-
pliance.

11. The performance of Coastal Wardens is quite
variable in their enforcement of the Coastal Wetlands

Law.

12. Local administration and enforcement of Shore-

Land Zoning is extremely variable.

13. Administration of Shoreland Zoning on the state
level has been only minimally supported.

4.0 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made for
improving the enforcement of the four environmental

laws under review:

1. Increase the level of staffing of the Division of
Enforcement, the Division of Review & Planning, and the
Attorney General's Office.

2. Include standard conditions of approval in Board
.Orders which ensure that applicants and contractors

read and understand the orders.

3. Transfer project files to regional enforcement
staff in a timely fashion.

4. More guidance provided to the Division of Enforce-
ment by the Division of Review and Planning.

5. Develop a mechanism for handling minor viola-

tions.

6. Shorten the negotiation time for consent agree-

ments.

7. . Develop better coordination between local code
enforcement officers and the Enforcement Division

personnel.

8. Encourage more assistance from Coastal wardens
in enforcing the Coastal Wetlands Law.

9. Develop a public education program on the four

environmental laws.

10. Develop baseline data on activities subject to
regulation under the four environmental laws.

11. Transfer some of the State's Shordland Zoning
responsibilities from the State Planning Office to the
Department of Environmental-Protection.

12. Increase the State commitment to the administra-
.tion of'Shoreland Zoning.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 General Background

Beginning in the late 1960's and extending through
the 70 1 s, the Maine Legislature adopted a number of
laws designed to protect the State's natural environ-
ment. These laws reflected strong state and national
sentiment that the protection of our natural resources
is necessary to ensure long-term social, environmental
and economic,well-being.

The thrust of the enacted laws was to regulate
development activities such that the integrity of the
natural environment would be maintained. The implemen-
tation of the legislation involved the development of
a structure to administer the established system of
permit procedures and regulations.

In-the early 19701s, Maine began to focus parti.cu-
lar attention on its coastal areas by beginning the
development of a coastal program. This program, sup-
ported o@, federal funding, recognized the coast as an
important section of the State in terms of its spec-
tacular beauty, abundance of natural resources, and
economic importance %to Maine as a whole.

In 1978, Maine expanded its participation in the
federal Coastal Zone Management Program by obtaining
federal approval of the State's Coastal Program. The
program, developed by the State Planning Office, was
designed "to achieve a balance between conservation
and development in the coastal area that will satisfy
the short and long term social, economic, and environ-
mental needs." Approval of the program made Maine
eligible for additional levels of funding for coastal
program activities.

The regulatory core of the coas'tal program is
composed of eleven state environmental and resource.
protection laws intended to accomplish a large part of
the' stated program goal. The laws include: Protection
and Improvement of Waters; - Alteration of Coastal Wet-
lands; Mandatory Zoning and Subdivision Control; Land
Use Regulation; Site Location of Development; Protec-n-
tion and Improvement of Air; Solid waste Management;
Alteration of Rivers, Streams and Brooks; Oil Dis-
charge Prevention and Pollution Control; and, Marine
Resources,Management.

Since 1978, more than a million dollars each year
has been provided to Maine through the federal Office
of. Coastal Zone Mangement to support and develop the'
state's coastal program. Much of this money has been
distributed to coastal municipali ties throuh a local
grants program. In 1979, part of tll@e funding was
provided to the Department of Environmental Protection
to hire additional staff for the administration and
enforcement of some of the State's environmental laws.

The 1970 s was a period of creating through law
.adequately protect
the measures deemed necessary to
our natural environment. The challenge of the 1980's
is to evaluate what has been accomplished and refine
t@ie sys:tem which has been established.

In the past ten years, the entire 1,74;.eld of environ-
mental protection has matured considerably. Research
and monitoring has added to our knowledge and under-
standing of the relationship between human activity
and environmental quality. Changes in population
growth, migration patterns, public P.-e_-F-erences, --he

national and state economies, and industrial tech-
nology have altered the direction, type, and intensity
of development pressure on our natural resources and

land base.

Priorities concerning environmental . protection
have also changed. Air pollutants associated with acid
rain and groundwat.er contamination from illegal dump-
ing of toxic wastes, now very much in the public eye,
received little attention ten years ago. The present
political climate is sensitive to the cost and re-
strictiveness of governmental regulation. And, all
levels of government are in the process of scrutiniz-
ing the effectiveness and utility of their programs.

1.2 Proje t Purpose

The purpose of this project is to evaluate the
enforcement of four Maine environmental statutes in
terms of their -effectiveness in protecting Maine's
coastal resources. These laws are the Site.Location of
Development Law, the Alteration of Coastal Wetlands
Law, the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act, and the Solid
Waste Management Act.

The study focusses particular attention on: the
Department of Environmental Protection's Land Bureau,
which has the responsibility of administering and
enforcing the Site Location, Coastal Wetlands, and
Solid Waste management Laws; the State P Ilanning
Office, which administers Shoreland Zoning on a state-
wide" level; and, municipal planning boards, which
administer and enforce shoreland zoning on the local
level.

Four basic questions were addressed in the course
of this study:-

Do local and state administrative systems review
all coastal development activities which are regu-
lated by these laws?

2. When construction permits are approved, denied, or
granted with conditions, are the state and local
enforcement mechanisms effective in ensuring com-
pliance with those decisions?

3. In cases where enforcement does not ensure compli-
ance, are significant environmental impacts likely

to result?

4. what measures would be most effective in improv-
ing the present enforcement situation and ensuring
compliance with these four environmental laws?

To enhance communi cation between the consultants
and the state agencies responsible for administering
the four environmental laws, and to provide a mechanism
for continuous review and evaluation during the course
of this study, a Project Steering Committee was estab.-
lished. This Committee met periodically with the con-
sultants during the course of the study and provided
guidance in fulfilling project objectives. The Commit-
tee also. reviewed and d-4scussed the findings and
recommendations presented in this report. These find-
ings and recommendations, however, represent the opin-
ions of the consultants. The Committee was not intended
to do anything more then provide guidance in urder-
taking the study.

Members of the Project Steering Committee inclu-
ded: John Bastey, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection; Hollis McGlauflin, Maine Department of
Environmental Protection; Wal,ter Foster, Maine Depart-
ment of Marine Resources; Gary Higginbottom, Ulaine
State Planning Office; Rich Rothe, Maine State Plann-

ing office;. and, Rebecca Warren, Maine municipal Asso-

ciation.

Lecislative History

A brief legislative history and description of the
fundamental points of the four laws being reviewed is
provided below. These descriptions are intended to
give the reader a flavor of what t1he laws entail in
order to better understand subsequent discussion in
this report.

Site Location of Development Law

The Site Location of Development Law (Title 38
M.R.S.A., Sections 481-489), became effective on Jan-
uary -1, 1970. The law requires approval from the Board
of Environmental Protection prior to the construction
or operation of developments including: subdivisions in
excess of 20 acres; gravel or borrow pits over 5 acres
in size; parking lots, roads or paved areas which
causes a total project to exceed a ground area of 3
acres; buildings with a ground area in excess of 60,000
square f eet; and, drilling or excavating natural re-
sources wher ie'Che area affected is in excess of 60,000
square feet.,

In 1979, the Site Location Law was amended to
include Mining activity involving the extraction or
removal, of more than 1,000 cubic yards of product or
overburden within twelve successive calendar months.
During the, same legislative session, roads became
exempt from. review under this law as long as the roads
are built according to state standards.

The Act establishes general criteria to be used by
the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) -6n decid-
ing whether or not to approve a proposed development:

"The Board shall approve a development proposal.
whenever it finds that:

1. Financial capacity. The developer has the fin-
ancial capacity and technical ability' to meet
state air and water pollution control stan-
dards, and has made adequate provision for
solid waste disposal, the control of offensive
odors,, and the securing and maintenance of
sufficient and healthful water supplies;

2. Traffic,movement. The developer* has made ade-
quate provision for traffic movement of all
types out of or into the development area;

3. No adverse ef f ect on the natural . environment.
The developer has made adequate provision for
fitting the development harmoniously into the
existing natural environment and that the
development will not adversely affect existing
uses, scenic character', or natural resources
in the municipality or in neighboring munici-
palities.

4. Soil types. The proposed.. development will be
built an soil types which are suitable to the
nature of the undertaking."

The BEP has the statutory authority to place terms and
conditions upon the granting of approval.

The statute contains a provision which allows the
BE? to grant municipalities the authority to review
subdivisions of certain sizes through municipal plan-
ning board review rather than requiring review under
the Site Location Law.

1.32 Alteration of Coastal Wetlands Law

The Alteration of Coastal Wetlands law (Title 38-
M.R.S.A., Sections 471-478) prohibits the dredging,
draining, filling, displacement, and the construction
'of permanent structures in, on or over any coastal
wetland and coastal dune without first obtaining a
permit for such activity from the Board of Environmen-
tal Protection (SEP).

The Law was adopted in 1975 and only regulated
activities within coastal wetlands.. The Act was amen-
ded (C. 504, Section 1) in 1979 with the addition of
the coastal dune provisions, which. prohibits the bull-
dozing, removal, addition or displacement of sand or
the building of permanent structures in, on or over
any coastal sand dune without first obtaining a
permit.

The Law provides for the issuance of wetlands
permits, provided the applicant demonstrates to 'the
satisfaction of the BEP that the proposed activity
will not unreasonably interfere with existing recrea-
tional and navigational uses; nor. cause unreasonable
soil erosion; nor unreasonably interfere with the
natural flow of any waters; nor unreasonably harm
wildlife or freshwater, estuarine or marine fisheries;
nor lower the quality of any waters.

dunes permit will be issued provided the pro-
posed activity- will not unreasonably interfere with
existing recreational or wildlife uses; unreasonably
interfere with the natural supply or movement of sand
within or to the sand dune system;. unreasonably in-
crease the erosion hazard to the. sand dune system; or
cause an unreasonable flood hazard to structures built
in, on or over any coastal sand dune or neighboring
property.

Similar to the Site Location Law, the BE? can
grant municipalities the authority to issue Coastal
Wetlands permits and the BEP ora municipality, can
issue permits.subject to terms and conditions.

mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act

The Mandatory Shore.land Zoning and Subdivision
Control Act (Title 12 M.R.S.A., Sections 4811-4814)
became effective in September of 1971.

The Act mandated that all cities and towns adopt
and administer zoning for all land areas within 250
feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high water
mark of any pond, river or salt water body or have the
State impose a zoning ordinance for the 250 foot area.
Even when a shoreland zoning ordinance is state im-
posed, the administrative responsibility rests with the
muni c i pa I i ty.

-he Act originally established a July 1, 1973
deadline for local compliance. This date was sub-
sequently changed by the Legislature to 'July 1, 1974.

The Board of Environmental Protection and the Land
Use Regulation Commission are responsible.for adopting
state-imposed ordinances for. municipalities which have
not adopted or have repealed shoreland zoning. A
state-imposed ordinance may also be put into effect if
an ordinance adopted by a municipality is determined to
be too.lax or permissive.

The State Planning Office is responsible for co-
ordinating the efforts and responsibilities of the.BEP
and LURC under this statute. The State Planning Office
also provides support to the Shoreland Zoning. Task
Force which is made up of members of the BEP and LURC

and which makes recommendations to the BEP and LURC

concerning general policy and specific actions direc-
ted toward particular municipalities.

1.34 Solid Waste Manaaement Act-

The Solid Waste Management Act (Title 38 M.R.S.A.,
Sections 1301-1311) was adopted in 1973. This law

authorized the Board of Environmental Protection to
adopt, amend, and enforce such rules and regulations as
deemed necessary to govern solid waste management,
including the location, establishment, construction and

alteration of solid waste facilities.

The BEP adopted solid waste regulations which
became effective on February 1., 1976 and addressed the
disposal of solid waste,. septic tank sludge and muni-
cipal treatment plant sludge on land.

In 1979, '.'-he Septage and Hazardous Waste Law was
merged into the Solid Waste 'Management Act and An A c 1C.-
to Establish a Soiid W aste Management Subsidy f"o r

Municipalities was adopted.

Ine "Subsidy Law" made the state a partic4pant
with municipalities in paying for the cost of main-
taining and operating solid waste disposal facilities.
the subsidy was intended in part as an, incentive to
communities to improve the existing solid waste dispo-
..sal situation. only municipalities with facilities in
"substantial compliance" with state laws and regula-
tions were eligible for up to a 50% reimbursement for
eligible costs under the program based on the amount
of money in the subsidy pool. In 1980, S500,000 was
available in the subsidy. program. In 1981, no money
was appropriated by the Legislature for municipal
solid waste subsidy.

In .1981, the Maine Legislature authorized the
Department of Environmental Protection to provide
technical as Isistance to municipal i ties regarding solid
waste , management. The following, funds were appropria-
ted for carrying out the purposes of the Act: S125,000
for,FY 81-82 and $110,550 for FY 82-83. While the DEP
has had the responsibility for providing solid waste
disposal technical assistance for a number of years,
the passage of this Act marks the first time state
funds have been appropriated for this sp ec i J*':'-4 c

purpose.

The Land Bureau of the Department of Environmental
Protection (CEP) is presently. reevaluating and updac-
ing all previous solid waste management regulations.

0 Compliance with the Laws

2.1 Introduction

One of the primary objectives of this study was to
determine the extent of compliance with the four laws
under review whichregulate human activity along the
coast of Maine. No such analysis has been made since
the laws became effective.

This portion of the study attempts to answer a
number of questions in relation to the laws:

- Are necessary state and local permits and approvals
being obtained for activities regulated by these

laws?

- Are conditions applied to permits and approvals
being met?

- If the law is not being complied with, why is this

the case?

- Is there any regional variation in degree of com-
pliance?

- Do apparent violations of the laws result in. signti-
cant impacts on the coastal environment?

The size of Maine's coastal area is so large that
a thorough analysis of all activity within this por-
tion of the state was not possible within the context
of this study. Maine's coastal zone encompasses 144
municipalities in nine of the state's -sixteen coun-
ties. The coastal area is over 3,500 square miles in

size and includes over 4,000 linear miles of shore-
line. Literally thousands of approvals and permits
have been issued under the four laws.

In an attempt to limit the geographic scope of the
project to a.manageable size while retaining a compr e-
hensive coastal perspective, a case study approach was
adopted. Six municipalities were selected for inten-
sive investigation. Results from detail.ed case studies
combined with more general research conducted on a
regional and coast-wide basis serve as the basis for
the findings preSented later in this report.

2.2 Case Study Selecti-on

The first task, of the study was the selection of
the case study communities. The objective was to
choose communities which reflect a reasonably repre-
sentative sample of the coastal area.

A list was prepared of factors to be considered in
making the selection of. case study locations. The
factors identified included:

geographic distribution: DEP enforcement districts;

distance from a DEP regional
office;

location along t.he coast of

Maine

character of community: urban, suburban, rural;

seasonal vs year-round eco-
nomic base;

year-round vs seasonal popu-

lation

12 -

physical character-istics: length of shoreline;

type of coastline;

extent of wetlands;

riverine vs marine environ-

ment

development character-
istics: population change (1970-80);

change in - number of housing
units (1970-80);

number of DEP permits/appro-

vals issued

administrative
characteristics: full-time/part-time code en-
forcement officer;

presence of town manager or
town planner;

state imposed vs locally
adopted shoreland zoning
ordinance;

existence of other land use

ordinances

.Lnitially, the possibility of using a systematic
and statistically valid selection process was ex-
plored. However, this was abandoned for two reasons.
First, in light of the number of selection factors
identified, the number of possible combinations of
factors far exceeded L the number of case study loca-
tions which (;ould be feasibly investigated. Secondly,
the constraints of the contract did not allow for the

systematic characterization of all 144 coastal commun-
ities in relation to the factors identified.

The process of selecting case study locations was
more informal and less rigorous. Final selections were
based on: the consultant's knowledge and understanding
of the Maine coast; discussions with knowledgeable
individuals; discussions with the Project Steering Com-
mittee; and, a sensitivity to the factors which had
been identified.

The municipalities of Wells, Brunswick, Camden,
Winterport, Deer Isle, and Pembroke were selected for
detailed study. While being neither a statistically
valid sample L of coastal communities nor necessarily.
truly representative of the Maine coast as a whole, it
was felt that these communities satisfy the origi-
nal objective of selecting locations which reflect
reasonably representative sample of the coastal area.

@he characteristics of the six case study loca-

tions are summarized in Table 1. The locations of the
six communities are noted in Figure 1.

2.3 Method of Investigation

The investigaticn of compliance with the 'ff'our laws
in z1ae six case study co=uniz:ies focused on major

-TABLE I

Case Study Community Characteristics

Wells Brunswick Camden Winterport Deer Isle Pembroke

U o (County York Cumberland Knox Waldo Hancock Washington
-4
(DEP enforcement
4
W-"4 district Southern Southern Central Downeast Downeast Downeast

0
M (Distance from
DEP regional 30 mi 25 mi 30 mi 18 mi 45 mi 120 mi
office

a (Nature of Suburban Urban Urban Suburban Rural Rural
Community Seasonal Year-round Seasonal Year-Round Seasonal Year-round
-r4M
a -H
= W Population
E 0 (
(1980) 8,146 17,392 4,586 2,674 1,486 922

of Seasonal
Housing units 2,094 212 288 17 437 47
U

(Shoreline length
(miles) 40 50 17 9 126 47
-4 W (Wetlands area
Vj Aj
U Q ( (acres) 1,380 574 0 110 0 27
(Coastal Char@ sand rocky rocky tidal rocky rocky
acter beach river

(Population
change (1970- +83%, +7% +11% +36% +23% +32%
1980)
Housing change
(1970-1980) +66% +22% +18% +62% +21% +31%

of Site Loca-
-4 -W
@u U (-- tion applics. 21 13 10 3 1 0
> M
(D $w
of Wetlands
applications 48 14 11 3 13 2

(Code Enforce- full- full- full- part- part- part-
ment officer time time time time time time
Town Manager yes yes yes yes no no
(Town Planner no yes no no no no

>
.14 W State imposed
AJ W (
Shoreland yes no no yes no yes
Zoning
(Other land Sub. Sub. Sub.
use ordinances Zon. Zon. Zon.

Sub. - Subdivision Regulations
Zon. - Townwide Zoning

FIGURE 1 CASE STUDY C0%VMlTlEs AND MAINE'S COASTAL ZONE

-777

'-7 f@

PEvSCRKE

Isuc

WIF40R CIVIL DIVIS1014S

STATE OF
MAINE

BUR# Au -tA@ftr

Of
T;.

FIGURE 2 DEP DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT REGIONAL UFFICES

%
AL""
.7 ;,..7!

PR ISLE

NOMER4
ei f-7.

a a 0

A, f 8"

4xf
WfEAST

MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONS

STATE OF
MAINE

?art OF
O4P'kNTW(%r Of r@A:SMP(04YAT1Oft
sueem. or ft&""ftc

SOUTHER4
'5@

17 1?80

areas: I compliance by obtaining the appropriate
permits and approvals; and, 2. compliance 1_-Jy satisfy-
ing the terms and conditions of permits and approved
plans.

2.31 Permit Application and Approval

This phase of the study required the development
of a methodology to answer the following question in
each case study community: Have activities which are
regulated under the laws occurred in the absence of an
approved permit application and plan? Arriving at an
answer to this question involved a two step process:
first, the identification of all activities for which
approval had been obtained; and, second, the review of
municipal records and on-site investigations to reveal
activities for which permits had not been obtained.

DEP files in Augusta, the Department's main
office, and in regional offices in Portland and Bangor
were reviewed for applications made under the Site
Location and Coastal Wetlands Laws from each of the

case study communities. This review included noting
the nature of the proposed activity; the name and
address of the applicant; the date of approval or
denial of the application; conditions of approval;
and,. mapping of the geographic. location of the activ-
ity.

4n reviewing
Some difficulties were experienced
IDEP files.- ..In a few instances, files could not be
located and it was not apparent whether the zfiles had
been placed in archives or were misplaced. Particular-
ly in older files, it was not clear whether ce?zain
conditions of approval had been met; and, '_Jn some
files, Ithe map locating the developmenz was not expli-
cit enough to pinpoint izs precise location.

The Shoreland Zoning permits granted by the
municipalities were documented through a review of
town records. Files of the planning board,- board of
appeals, and code enforcement officer had to be re-
viewed since different types of development are
reviewed and approved by different bodies under Shore-
land Zoning. In many instances, no specific notation
was made on municipal records that action taken fell
under the shoreland zoning ordinance.

Considerable variability was &xperienced in
reviewing municipal records. In more than half of the
six case study communities, there was at least some
period of -time during which records of municipal
approval were simply not available. For the most part
this occurred during' the first few years of the
administration of the ordinance. At the same time, two
of the communities had well organized records of
approval dating from July. 1, .1974 when shoreland
zoning became effective. Nearly all of the communities
had good records'of approvals over the,past few years.

In general, municipal shoreland zoning records
lacked good descriptions of the nature and the loca-
tion of approved developments. A. site plan was
included in only a few instances. The location of a
development was usually difficult to determine. A good
map or a clear verbal description of the location was
more the exception than 'che rule. In -chree of the
communities, the tax map and lot numbers were used to
determine the precise location. In other instances,
the only way to locate approved developments was
through the assistance of municipal officials.

32 Identification and Documentation of Statutorv Non-Com-

pliance.
Since each of the laws became effective on differ-
ent dates, it was necessary to establish a baseline of
activities which had occurred prior to these dates and
were thus grandfathered. Aerial photography, cultural
information on U.S.G.S. topographic maps, and other
available land use maps were explored. While these
sources of information were helpful in researching
specific cases of suspected non-compliance, they were
of little use in establishing a town-wide baseline.
Municipal records and files were found to be much more

valuable.

Subdivision plans approved by the municipal plan-
ning boards were reviewed to ensure that all such
plans had obtained DEP approval where necessary under
the Site Location Law. Additionally, both field and
aerial reconnaissance were used to spot potential Site
Location violations. Due to the sheer size of develop-
ments which are subject to this law, these methcds
were considered sufficient for identifying instances
of non-compliance.

-i-o identify non-compliance with the Coas-.al We".-
lands and Sho reland Zoning laws, both municipal tax
records and building permit records were used. Firsz,
municipal tax maps and files were used to identify all
lots which fell within the shoreland zone. All lots
which were partially or entirely within 250 feet of
aesignated water bodies were considered shoreland

lots.

For communities which require, building permits,
tha@- permits were used to document the type and loca-
tion of development on a shoreland lot. Development
within the shoreland zone was cross-checked against
planning board records to confirm planning board
review and approval of a shoreland zoning permit when
such approval was required by the ordinance.

zome corrmunities had no building permit require-
ment. In these cases, the tax records alone were used
to identify potential shoreland development. Tax maps
were again used to locate all lots partially or
entirely within the shoreland zone. Current and
previous owners were then established for each lot,

and tax assessor's records were reviewed to determine
a sequential picture of property and building valua-
tion over a four to five year period.

Of particular interest were lots which changed
from no tax assessment, on buildings to some building
assessment. Large increases in valuation beyond the

usual increase for the town was also noted. These

changes in the tax assessment for shoreland lots
identified structural development during the particu-
lar time interval reviewed. Field investigation was
then required to determine whether the lot development

had occurred within the shoreland zone.

In addition to the review of municipal records,
field. and aerial reconnaissance was used to identify
potential violations of the Coastal Wetlands Law
Shoreland Zoning Ordinances.

In all case study communities, the method of
investigation explained above was supplemented through
discussion with local and state officials, such as

planning board members, town managers, code enforce-

m
t of-ficers, coastal wardens, and DEP personnel,
en and

other knowledgeable individuals. These discussions
proved to be more useful in identifying problems with
and attitudes concerning the laws and their adminis-
tration/enforcement than in identifying particular
instances of non-compliance. while some of the people
interviewed , did acknowledge that non-compliance
occurs, very few were willing to identify specific
violations.

uf all the laws reviewed, violations of the
Coastal Wetlands Law were most difficult to identify.
many of the types of activities which fall under this
law. (such as dredging or filling) are neither subject
to scrutiny under other laws nor are they of concern
to municipal tax assessors. As the result, few records
were located for use as a cross reference against DEP
files. Also many of the types of developments which
fall under this law, such as fills, are not readily
apparent in aerial photographs or subject to notation
in most land use mapping, thereby eliminating the
opportunity to establish a historical baseline. Field
investigations, discussions with individuals, and
aerial reconnaissance were used in identifying wet-

lands violations."

2.33 Comnliance with Terms and Conditions,

The determination of compliance with terms and
conditions of approvals and permits, including the
construction of a project according to approved plans,
was approached from two perspectives: to what ex--en-l-
do the responsible ennforcement,agents conduct inspec-
zions to ensure such compliance; and to what exzent
does such compliance actually occur?

The evaluation of the, performance of enforcement
agents was based on a review of municipal and DEP files
and discussions with the enforcement personnel and
other knowledgeable individuals. Difficulties arose due
to the incomplete or inconsistent reporting of compli-
ance inspections in DEP files. Frequent turnover of
municipal code enforcement officers hampered the devel-
opment of a consistent picture of municipal enforcement
since enactment of shoreland zoning.

The extent of compliance with conditions of, ap-
proval was arrived at through the review of project
files, discussions with enforcement agents, and field
investigations. Some of the stumbling blocks exper-
ienced in these efforts included: the absence of detail
in approved plans, particularly in the case of shore-
land zoning; the placing of terms and conditions of
approval which are unenforceable; difficulty in locat-
ing the, development site; incomplete inspection re-
port.s;. gaining access to development sites; and, the
inability to conduct an inspection of a project at the
point during construction when a particular condition
of approval applied.

2.34 Solid Waste Management

of the four laws under scrutiny, the Solid Waste
Management Act by design received the least amount of
attention. This study was limited to only that portion
of the law which deals with municipal solid waste
disposal. The solid waste management situation in

Maine has been subject- to other studies whereas this
is not the case for the other three laws. Also, the
constraints of the contract did not provide the oppor-
tunity for a more thorough investigation in this area.

The method of investigation into the solid waste
situation in the case study communities included a
review of DEP files and discussions with municipal and
DEP officials, and some of the operators of the dis-
posal facilities. The conclusions and recommendations
in this area are based on both 'Che results of work
undertaken as part of this contract and work performed
for the DEP by Arthur Lerman Associates earlier this

year

2.4 Case Study Results

Introduction

As described in the previous section, six case
study communities were selected for detailed investiga-
tion into the degree of compliance with and the
effectiveness of enforcement of the four environmental

laws under review in this study. What follows is a
@description of the results of this investigation for
the municipalities of wells, Brunswick, Camder., Winter-
port, Deer Isle, and Pembroke.

The format of these descriptions starts with a
brief discussion of the physical and ctaltural charac-
ter of the community. In each case an ef fort was made
to highlight factors which might influence C.@,,e pat-
tern, rate, or type of development wit.hin that commun-
ity and facrors which might influence the enforcement

process.

The body of each case study describes the history
of permit application review and.compliance inspections
pertaining to the Site Location Law, Alteration of
Coastal Wetlands Law, and Shoreland Zoning. This his-
tory is summarized in two tables for each community.

Since some files could not be located for our
review, a distinction is made between the number of
DEP applications that were filed under eaci-i !,=w and
the number that were reviewed by this study. Other
statistics of interest, such as number of af ter-the-
fact applications and number of cases discovered to be
in non-compliance, are also indicated on these tables.
Since 1979 was an important year with respect to
levels of staffing for DEP's Enforcement Division,
permit approval and compliance inspections are segre-,
gated as having occurred either before or after this

year.

Finally, each case study includes observations and
conclusions by the consultants for each respective
community. These remarks are based both upon our
experience with that particular community as well as
more general coastal-wide information obtained from
discussions with state and local enforcement person-

nel.

Wells

General Description

Wells. is a town located within the beach bel:

along Utaine's southern coast. The Town has histor-
ically been oriented toward the summer trade which
serves as the economic backbone of the community.
Wells Beach and Moody Beach, which are barrier spits,
have been almost completely developed for summer rec-
reational use and are covered by high density residen-
tial dwellings. There is limited commercial develop-

4r
ment in the shoreline portion 0j. the Town. Most
commercial recreational development occurs along Route
1 which runs parallel to -the ocean.

Wells had a 1980 year-round population of 8,146.
This represented a 83. 1% increase in population since
1970 and makes Wells one of the fastest growing
communities in the State. The Town itself has a small
industrial base. Much' of the new development (a 660%
increase in housing units between 1970 and 1980)
accommodates people who work in nearby communities.
Housing development has been spurred within the past
five years by the completion of a municipal sewage
treatment system. The system included the ex--ension of
sewer lines to numerous parcels which had previously

not, been buildable lots.

There are roughly 40 Miles of shcreline J_n 'welIs.
Much of this shoreline, particularly an the backside
of the barrIer spits, is abutted by coas-cal .,detlands.
Over 1,000 acres of coastal wetlands have been pre-
served through inclusion in the Rachel Carson National-
W ildlife Refuge.

A A
#
Ir

IN
it

A townwide zoning ordinance and subdivision regu-
lation are in effect in Wells. In November, 1980, the
Town Meeting enacted a "Planned Growtn Ordinance" in
an attempt to control the increase in new residential
construction. There is a town planning board and board
of appeals. There is also a full-time town manager.

Wells is located in the DEP's southern enforcement

district.. DEP's regional office in that district is
located in Portland which is approximately 30 miles
from wells.

Site Location Law

The DEP has records of 15 approved residential
subdivisions in Wells since 1972. Several of them have

gone through revisions since their original approval.
Two are mobile-home developments. No DEP approved
subdivisions are located in the shoreland zoning area
of the Town.

No subdivisions were identified that were subject

to
k@ the Site Location Law and had not obtained DEP

approval. This conclusion is based on conversations
with municipal and OEP officials, a review of m= _J c
pal files, and limited field reconnaissance. Forty
subdivisions received municipal review 4V and approval
from 1974 to 1980.

A review of the individual project files for !3 of
.-he 15 approved subdivisions indicates that: no sys-
zematic inspection of subdivisions has been conducted
by the 08P. Of the 13 approved projects, seven ap-
parently had not been. inspected by CIEF s--aff. Of -.he

29 -

six projects inspected by the DEP, five projects were
noted as being incomplete, including one in which.
construction had just started., One of the subdivi-
sions inspected was identified as being in non-coril-
pliance with conditionsof approval.

of the 13 DEP approved subdivisions reviewed by
this study, 10 had. received approval prior to 1979.
Seven of these ten had been inspected, five prior to
1979 and two during or af ter 1979. Of the 3 subdivi-
sions which were approved since 1979, one has been
inspected by the DEP enforcement staff.

one industrial project and two institutional pro-
jects - 'a high school, and a church-parish facility -
have obtained Site Location approval. The industrial
.development, approved in 1979 and revised in 1980 and
1981, is under construction and is being inspected
regularly by enforcement staff. Problems of erosion
are. being addressed and no environmental damage is
anticipated. The institutional projects, one approved
in 1976, the other in 1978, are not known to have been
inspected.

One gravel pit application was wi-thdrawn ;-=nd the
area of the pit reduced to make it exempt f rom -the
law.

The project staff inspected 7 of the 16 -develop-
ments which have obtained "approval under the Site
Location Law. Four of the developments had been in-
spected by the DEP staff, while the DEP files indi-
cated that three had not been i'nspected. One of -the

DEP Applications

No. No.
Type of of DEP Applic's No. No. No. Reviewed No. Cases
Law Development Applie's Approved Denied Withdrawn After Fact By Study Non-Compfi.*

Site Location Subdi-viston, 17 15 2 0 0 13 0.

Public Buildings 2 2 0 0 0 2 0

Industrial 1 1* 0 0 0 1 0

Gravel Pit 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total 21 18 2 1 0 16 0

Wetlands Dwellings 10 10 0 0 0 10 1
Walls 21 16 2 3 N/A 14 0

Other 6 5 1 0 0 6 0.

Fill 11 3 8 0 5 10 4
Total 48 34 it 3 5 40 5

Not having received necessary approval or permit.

DEP Inspections WFT,,,S

DEP FILES Case Study Field Work

No. of
Projects App'd. Inspected App'd. Inspected
Type of Reviewed Before Before Since Since Since No. of
Law Devel. by Study Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Insp. Non-Compli.

Site Location Subdivision 13 10 5 2 3 1 5 1

Institutional 2 2 0 0 - - 2 0

Industrial 1 z
Total 16 T2 5 2 4 2 7 1

Wetlands Dwellings 10 0 0 0 10 1 10 2

Walls 14 6 1 0 2 6 0

Other 6 5 1 1 1 N/A 2 0

Fill 10 0 0 0 3 1 9 6
Total 40 11 2 1 22 4 27 8

developments which had not been inspected by the
Department was found to be in non-compliance with the
DEP approval.

Coastal Wetlands Law

with the adoption of revisions to the Coastal
Wetlands Law in September 1979, new structures on

dunes came under DEP Wetlands review. Until then the

dunes were not considered wetlands. in-all, ten dwel-
lings have been approved in 1980-81, a majority of
which are under construction or complete.

All ten dunes projects completed or under con-
struction were field-inspected as part of this study.
All but two appear to be in compliance with conditions
of approval. Of those two, both appear to have a
surplus of fill, raising the ground elevation about six
inches to. one foot higher than neighboring lots, and
one appears to have more natural vegetation removed
than necessary.

The Portland DEP staff was familiar with most of
the projects, since they had been involved in pre-
permit investigations. However, all but one of the
project files were in Augusta and no compliance inspec-
tions had been conducted.

According to DEP files, seawall construction was
approved in sixteen cases and denied in two cases. Of
the fourteen approved project files reviewed, only
,three projects had been the subject of comipliance
inspection by DEP , staff. The consultants field in-
spected six of the approverd seawalls and _'O'_-und no
ins-lances of non-compliance with terms and canditions
of approval.

In a recent occurrence, a seawall was recon-

structed without a permit. But, in after-the-fact con-

that no
sultations with DEP staff, it was determined @
permit was required since there was a finding of no
significant difference from the wall it replaced.

Based on information provided by the Army Corps of
Engineers, there were two seawalls constructed without

authorization under the Wetlands Law. In one of these

cases, DEP obtained a consent agreement with monetary
penalty. The Corps' information was insufficient to

locate the other case.

Other approved wetlands projects were a large
sewer-crossing system,a sewer outfall, a sewage treat-
ment plant, an individual sewer crossing, Town ramps
and steps, and a water I ine-driveway. All but the last
were approved. Field observations verified compliance
of the Town project and the waterline driveway
(denied).

The large sewer crossing project by the Wells
Sanitary District created substantial violations as the
result of excessive movement of material,- grade
changes, and removal. of natural vegetation. Maine
Department of Marine Resources, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
DEP were all involved in enforcement over a period of
years. Restoration was undertaken after EPA withheld
project construction funds, and the work appears to
have been generally effective, although it is too early
to evaluate fully.

There are on record 11 Board cases involving
wetlands filling; only three fills were approved and
one was only a partial approval. Five cases, all
denied, "were after-the-fact. of these, four remain in
apparent non-compliance, according to field investiga-
tions. One of the latter is a relatively old case
which was referred to the Attorney General's office
but has not been acted upon.

In another fill case, the alleged violator was
ordered by the Board to remove the fill but no
deadline was given for compliance. A consent agreement
was offered by the DEP,and was not returned. The case
has been referred to the Attorney General's Office but
has not been given priority. Action is still pending.

Two after-the-fact applications were denied by the
Board, but field observations reveal that the fill has

not been removed and no subsequent DEP action has

been taken.

DEP enforcement personnel were familiar with prac-
tically all wetlands fill cases, whether approved or
denied, but had filed only one compliance inspection
report. The Town Code Enforcement officer, the Corps
of Engineers and the DIViR regional biologist have been
involved in reporting violations, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife personnel have helped police those wetlands
which are part of or 'carder on che Rachel Carson
Wildlife Refuge.

in field observations, three possibly unauzhorized
fill- areas were identified, none of which were ccn-
firmed by DEP, and all of which require further _Jnves@:iaa-
tion -zo determine more definite dates, extent of fill,
or aoc.Licability of the "wetlands" definiz.Jon.

The most difficult policing problem is evidently
the small backyard fills which intrude on t;he wet-
lands. An example of these is in the area of the Wells
Beach Fire Station. Again, more definite dates, mea-
surements and wetlands determinations would be needed
to investigate fully these "wheelbarrow jobs."

The Wells Code Enforcement Officer recently ob-
served a bulldozer on Wells Beach moving accumulated
sand away from the beach side of seawalls. The bull-
dozer work was done' without a wetlands permit and was
an apparent violation of the law. . Twenty-five shore-
front lots were involved in the bulldozing activity.
Prosecution of the contractor has been initiated. The
Coastal Warden from the Department of Marine Resources
also reports that those property owners who had pre-
viously requested permission to have the work done and
had been refused but went ahead with the work anyway,
will be prosecuted. This sand-clearing activity has
reportedly been a regular occurrence in the past, and
the Coastal Warden and the Code Enforcement Officer
have been consulting with DEP about ways of addressing
this problem in the future.

Shoreland Zoning

In 1974', a state-imposed Shoreland Zoning Ordi-
nance was put into effect in Wells. This ordinance was
considered interim and placed all . of the shoreland
area in the Resource Protection District. In 1975, the

state revised the ordinance to better reflect the

.situation in Wells.

In June, 1978,, Wells adopted its own Shoreland
Zoning Ordinance which is still in effect. As the
result of this town action, the state-imposed Ordinance
was repealed.

The Town of Wells contains approximately 1,000
lots in the Shoreland Zoning area, according to the
Assessors' tax maps. In order to determine the level of
enforcement of-the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, a sample
of these lots was selected:

Total Sample

Beachfront 318 106

Back Dunes and

Downriver 500* 125

Upriver 187 62

*approximate, due to boundary revisions of
wildlife refuge lands

Within the entire Shoreland Zoning area, every
third lot along the beachfront and upriver sections,
and every fourth lot in the back dunes were selected
for review. Observations were checked against. four
major elements of the ordinance:

1. permits for new structures (Sec. 11.0. and !V.D.)

2. setbacks (Sec. VIII.A.7.)

3. reconstruction, alteration and expansion of exis-
ting st.ructures (Sec..VIII.A.g.)

4. filling (Sec. VIII.A.10.)

First, the tax-assessment card of each sample lot
was examined and the type of development on the lot
(dwelling, additions,. porches, garages, etc.) re-
corded. In addition, structures built since 1975 were

noted.

Code Enforcement Officer's files were examined to

determine if permits had been obtained for new struc-

tures.

Results of this review were only partially satis-
factory due to faulty record-keeping prior to 1978.
Five structures noted on assessors' records as having
been built between 1975 and 1978 had no corresponding
permits in the files. After 1978, however, all struc-
tures in the sample were accounted for with pe.rmits in
the files.

Field investigation was conducted within represen-
tative sections of the beachfront and back dunes. The

observation sample was as follows:

Total Field Percent

Sample

Beachfront 318 77 240/

Back Dunes and

Downriver 500 79 1 16J 0/ /a

Total 813 156 19%

Sample lots observed in the field fell into the
following general development categories:

Beach Back Dune

Vacant 3 32

Existing prior to 1975 61 3:5

Additions to Exist.

Since 1975 11 5

New structures

Since 1975 2 9

Total 77 79

Setbacks were found to be in accordance with the
ordinance. A difficulty arises, however, from the
warding of-the ordinance wit-h respect to the wetlands
side of Moody Beach, Wells Beach and Drakes Island:
... no dwelling shall be less than 25 feet from the
edge of the wetland.1' The "edge of the wetland" has
been interpreted at the "high water mark," which is
defined for coastal waters as "that line on the shor.e
of tidal waters reached by the shoreward limit of the
rise of the medium tides between the spring and --he
neap."

A group of five structures and one foundaz--Lon. in
Moody appear to be significantly less than 25 feet
from the unvegetated, near-vertical edge of t-Ifte river
embankmenc. But, local and state officials have placed

the "high water mark" further into the stream bed,
making the setbacks adequate. From field observation,
that decision would appear open to dispute. One of
these houses and the foundation were built since 1978;
the others evidently antedate the ordinance.

Reconstruction,. alteration and expansion of struc-
tures appear to have been conducted, at least since
1978, in accordance with the Ordinance, with permits
being obtained in all cases. -One exception was noted
in connection with one of the Moody Beach structures
mentioned above: a deck protruding well beyond the
setback limit. In this case, an after-the-fact adjudi-
cation by the Board of Selectmen allowed the deck to
remain but fined the owner $500.

The ordinance requires a town permit for more than
10 cubic yards of fill. On coastal wetlands, it also
mandates prior permits from DEP and the Corps of
Engineers and sets up operational criteria for all
filling. it was generally not possible to evaluate
compliance with the operational criteria, since the
apparently unauthorized fills that were observed oc-
curred long before this study. As for the permit
process, it appears from several conversations with
the Code Enforcement Officer, the DEP and the Corps,
that the Town works cooperatively with the other
agencies in ensuring that permits are. secured, report-
ing violations, and policing operations. All fills
observed in the sample study areas are covered in the
Wetlands section of this report on Wells. Generally,
it can be said that the major problem is accumulation
of small fills, which are difficult to detect and
monitor, encroaching on the wetlands.

Solid Waste Management

Wells has been operating its solid waste disposal
facility off Route 9 since 1971. In 1973, the facility
was converted from a burning dump to an area system
landfill. The area owned by the Town is 125 acres,
approximately 15 acres of which are now covered. From
1975 to 1980 approximately 83,000 tons were delivered

to the site.

Until 1980, this area was also used to receive
septage, which was placed in lagoons developed for
that purpose. The original lagoon was being heavily

State,
overloaded and was leaking. After action by the
including a S1,000 fine, the lagoon was closed and a
new one built. However, shortly afterward, the munici-
pal sewage treatment plant was opened, and all sewage
is now delivered to that plant. Sludge from the plant
is disposed of in approved fields in the town and
elsewhere.

At the landfill site, there is at present a signi-
ficant leachate plume emanating from the refuse area.
A 1980 DEPstudy, "Ground Water Impact Assessment at
Selected Maine Communities," states that "the strong-
est contamination Nell No. 3) is in the direction of
expected ground water flow toward the Webhanner- River.
The local contamination of wells Vos. 2, 6, and 7
suggests that a -around water mound had formed' wizhin
the refuse, allowing localized flow in all d@4rections

from

"Refuse disposal directly into ground water,
report continues, "has allowed the generation of large
arrounts of leachate.. . The leachat-e plurne has a-- least
crossed onto *the adjoining property to the south."

The report recommended further investigation to

determine the full extent of contamination. The Town
has recently been in contact with DEP seeking further
technical advice and assistance. According to enforce-
ment personnel, no action has as yet been taken
against the Town because management of the landfill
has been sufficient in terms of DEP's operational
criteria to place it in a low enforcement priority.
The Town Manager reports that the Town has not been
under any recent pressure from the state to correct
existing conditions.

In consideration of the possibility of having to
dispose of some refuse in other towns, the Town
recently 'set up a fund of S10,000 for development of a
transfer station, if one is needed.

Conclusions

Site Location Law

On the basis of compliance inspections. noted in
project files, about half, or 56 percent of the
projects regulated by this law had been inspected by
DEP enforcement staff. The inspection rate prior to
1979 was approximately 42 percent, while the rate
after 1979 was approximately 64 percent..

Coastal Wetlands Law

According to project files, only about 18 percent
of all wetlands projects had been inspected by DEP
enforcement staff. There appeared to be no appreciable
difference in the inspection rate prior to and after
1979. A significant number of after-the-fact denials
which remained in non-compliance and unauthorized fills
were discovered during the course of field investiga-
tions by project staff.

Small fills appear to present a problem for
inspection and enforcement.. Definite dating and the
extent of any previous fill is often difficult to

document.

Shoreland Zonina

Municipal administration of the Wells Shore'-and
4'1.cn-,ng Ordinance appears to be quite adequate. Recon-
struction, al'te_-ation and expansion requ,.rements are

being enforced, but the procedure for establishing
the high-water atark for setback requirements may
result in public perception of inequity and unfair-
ness in the enforcement of this provision.

Solid Waste Management

While significant ground water contamination has
been noted in the vicinity of the Wells -land fill
site, the Town has,not been under any recent pressure

to correct these conditions. The DEP is, however,
providing technical assistance and advice to wells,
and a fund has been established to develop a transfer
station to dispose of some refuse in other towns.

2.42 Br=swick

General Description

Brunswick is a southern mid-coast community,
located twenty-five miles from the southern regional
enforcement office. The Town is bounded on the north
by the Androscoggin Riv@r,, and an the south by the
highly embayed coastline of Casco Bay.

This section of the Maine coast is generally a
transition zone between large, shallow bays and open
sand beaches to the south and west and deeply
indented, steep-sided fjord-like rocky coast to the

north and east. While much of the southern coastline
is very accessible and visible from the mainland, the
northern coastline is characterized by long project-
ing fingers of land that are often cut off from the
mainland by narrow guts or channels.

Brunswick is transected by two highly travelled

coastal routes: Interstate 1-95 and U.S. Route 1. In

.addition, the Brunswick Naval Air Station is located
in the eastern portion of the Town.

a A K a C

311

t Ar

45.,

Site Location Law

DEP files show ten residential subdivisions ap-
proved since 1972 in Brunswick. one was a large mobile
home park expansion. Of the DEP subdivisions, three,
including the mobile home park, were in the Town's

shoreland area.

The town has approved 28 residential subdivisions
since January 1976. In a review of the Town files it
was found that the ten projects approved by DEP were
the only subdivisions that required DEP approval.

Planned construction by the developer was incom-
plete in eight, of the ten cases and undetermined in
two. DEP enforcement personnel had conducted only four
inspections. Reinspections had not occurred for many
months or years in several cases.

In one case, a recent DE? . inspection discovered
severe erosion problems and failure -%o submit plans
for a dam, which had been a condition of approval. A
visit to another site in connection with this study
found a potential ponding problem due zo evidently
insufficient road drainage; -he DEP had apparently noz
inspected here as yet. Another project whic@i DEEP
ins-mect-ed several years ago was experiencing surface
water drainage problems. These have apparently noz
been completely rectified, but in a recent Board
approval of another subdivision in the same develop-
ment, one of the conditions requires an overall drain-
age plan before conveyance of new lots.

OL EMI&

DEP Applications BRUNSWICK

No. No.
Type of of DEP Applic's No. No. No. Reviewed No. Cases
Law Development Applic's Approved Denied Withdrawn After Fact By Study Non-Compli.*

Site Location Subdivision 10 .10 O 0 0 9 2

Indust., Inst. 3 3 0 0 0 2 0

Total 13 13 0 0 0 11 2

Wetlands Walls 3 3 0 0 0 3 0

Docks, etc. 5 5 0 0 1 5 1

Beaches 2 2 0 0 0 2 0

0
-j Other 4 4 0 4 0

Total 14 14 0 0 1 14 1

Not having received necessary approval or permit.

I)EP Inspections BRUNSWICK

DEP FILES Case_S.tudy Field Work

No. of
Projects App'd. Inspected App'd. Inspected
Type of Reviewed Before Before Since Since Since No. of
Law Devel. by Study Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Insp. Non-Compli.

Site Location S"bdivision 10 a 2 1 2 1 7 1
Ind.. Inst. 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Total 12 9 3 1 3 2

Wetlands Walla 3 2 1 0 .1 1 3 0
I Docks, etc. 5 3 0 0 2 1 1 0
4- Beaches 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 -
00
I Other 4 4 1 0 0 0 2 0
Total 14 11 3 0 3 2 6 0

It should be noted that the case files reveal
generally that' the greatest concerns expressed in
public and departmental comments during the permit
review process had to do with water quality, septic
discharge and traffic.

The other Site Location projects included an
elderly-housing development, an automobile show-
room/garage and a large industrial park. The first two
projects evidently created no enforcement problems.
The industrial park, approved in November 1980, is
under development; the case file has not yet *"been
referred to the Portland office. There have been no
gravel pit applications under the Site Location Law in

Brunswick.

Coastal. Wetlands Law

The shoreline of Brunswick facing the ocean bays
is generally rocky, rising sharply from the water or
tidal zone. Thus shoreland homeowners over the years
have sought to improve access and utilization of the
shore by means of docks, steps, walls and artificial
beaches. With increased pressure for shoreland de-
velopment, it would seem that more of such projects
can be expected.

Since enactment of the Wetlands Lawf the DEP had
formally processed 14 applications in this category
for Brunswick, all since 1975. All were approved,
though some with conditions, and some had been re-
vised. Attempts were made in the permit process to
minimize damage to wetland vegetation and to require
strict controls on the use of construction 'equipment
along the shore.

- 49

The 'Chree retaining walls approved were all in
apparent compliance, and the two larger ones were
inspected by DEP. There were five stairway or dock
systems, three of which occurred before present staff,
and files do not indicate if inspections were made.
One other was approved after- the-fact. The ownar has
been offered a consent agreement with a 525 fine,
though it has not yet been returned (due July 10,
1981).

one small sand beach development and a large beach
replacement project were approved. The latter occurred
several months after the replacement of beach sand had
reportedly started, although no administrative action
was taken on the earlier fill and it was not reported
as an after-the-fact violation.-

Four other wetlands approvals were granted in
Brunswick. Two. were river cable crossings, one aerzal
and one submarine. There were no DEP inspection re-
coeds of these. A bridge-replacement approval was
given in 1978 and the project is complete; impac-@- to
the stream enbankments appears to have been minimal.
An -approval for a small shoreline dredge operation was
denied, but the applicant was permitted to remove a
portion @f a wall and remove the debris by hand., Ttat
project appears to be in compliance.

No wetlands fill applications were orccessed -from
Brunswick. In conversations with Town officials, it
was reported that there is generally good compliance
with filling regulations. For example, --he chairman of
the Conservation Commission and the Code -_-n�:orcemen4._

Officer felt that there were very zfew unauthorized
fills, and those were minor. The Town She!116.- ish '.1arcien

reported that there may be an average of 10 small
infractions a year known to him, but- in most cases the
owners cooperated by stopping their operations. He did
express doubts that the filling cases referred by him
to the DMR Marine Patrol were acted upon, since these
were considered only a small part of his and their
du@ies. He advocated more specialization of enforce-
ment, with DEP inspectors being given greater policing
authority and manpower. to enforce. those laws which are
primarily environmental.

Two officials mentioned the possibility of un-
authorized filling having occurred at a construction
yard on the Androscoggin River. No complaints about it

were known to have been made to DEP.

Shoreland Zoning

Brunswick enacted its Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
in August 19,74. The Town is currently considering
addition of a Resource Protection District as part of
this ordinance. Brunswick's shoreland fronts several

bays and coves in the Casco Bay system and also
several miles of the New Meadows and Androscoggin
Rivers. According to the . town tax maps, there are
mately 600 lots in the shoreland district.
approxi

The Assessors files on each lot were found to

contain excellent detail. Notes were taken on each lot
showing what type of construction was on the lot and
the date of any structures since 1975, or whether the

lot was vacant.

Structures or other developments in the Shareland
Zoning districts since 1975 were as follows:

New Residences 7 New or Expanded Commercial

Mobile Homes Placed 3 or Recreational 2

Additions 7 Garages, Barns, Sheds,
Alterations Increasing Greenhou.ses, Shops,

Rooms or Units 3 Boathouses .6
Multifamily Complex 1 Major Excavations

Notations on these were checked against the Tow n
Code Enforcement file to determine the level of en-

forcement at the permit stage of development.

Finally, field tours were made within 10 of the 26
tax-map sections of the Shoreland District. The effort
here was to inspect these sample areas for signs of
new construction and to check any such activity
against the permit file.

Virtually all shoreland construction since 1975
was covered by a permit. The only discrepancies ap-
peared to be two sheds and a mobile home garage for
which permits could not be found; however, the asses-
sors dates for these structures were not certain. As
the Brunswick ordinance excludes only "principal
structures" 75 feet from the shoreline, t hese may not

constitute violations.

The field survey revealed no apparent unauthorized
structures, despi..te extensive exploration down private
driveways and footpaths. It should be pointed ouz
again, however, that many parts of actual
line were inaccessible. Still, from the sample thalt
was observed, it can be inferred that few, if 'any,

violations have occurred.

Solid Waste Management

The, Brunswick solid waste disposal facility on
Pleasant Hill Road has been operating at or beyond
capacity for several years. It is in violation of the
state's "300-foot law," being situated near Bunganuc
Brook. With the 15,000 tons of refuse generated an-
nu ally by the Tqwn, little shifting around-to accommo-
date more solid waste is possible. In addition,. -the
facility receives sewage sludge, though it is not a
state-approved site.

An engineering study contracted by the Town with
state assistance recommended 'development of a new
site. After DEP rejected one site, the Town decided on'
another site and acquired the property in 1980. An
engineering analysis of this site has been presented
to DEP, but approval has not as yet-been obtained. DEP
has suggested additional test wells to monitor ground-
water quality.

The new project if approved will be' a secure
sanitary landfill with a clay base. It will not accept
sewage sludge.

As part of the Town's overall disposal plan, a
home-pickup recycling program was initiated in the
Spring of 1980. Two packer trucks were purchased, and
white glass, cardboard and newspaper are received,
with separation conducted by the homepOner. It is
believed that about 4 percent of the Town's refuse has
been picked up in the first year of t.he program for
recycling.

Brunswick was also one of the Towns zo nave . oecome
part of a waste-burn.:Ing steam generation project with
Pejebscot Paper Co. This proposal was being packaged
by the Southern Midcoast Regional Planning Commission
at the time that agency closed down. The status of the
project is therefore uncertain.

Brunswick's solid waste croblems will not end even

nzus@ be
if the new landfill is approved. The old 'dump
treated under an approved closing plan, with careful
slope stabilization, covering, seeding, etc. For many
years, the Bunganuc shellfish flats have been closed
due 'to coliform contamination believed to, be from the
dump. Testing has been under way- to trace the source
within the dump, but as yet no determination has been
made.

Conclusions

Site Location Law

Post-approval inspections have been made by DEP
enforcement staff of a few of the Site Location
projects. According to project files, fifty percent
of Site Location projects had been inspected, with a
marked improvement in,the ins jam r_-tp Rincp 19 79.,
Where problems have been noted, the staff has at-
tempted to deal on a cooperative basis with the
developers. In several cases, there have been no
recent inspections or reinspections of projects ap-
proved prior to 1979.

Coastal Wetlands Law

In general, compliance with the Wetlands Law
appears to be good in Brunswick. Inspections of
approved projects by DEP personnel have been irregu-
lar but seem to have been directed at activities
requiring movement of large amdunts of material.
Prior to 1979, the inspection rate was about 33
percent, while the rate of inspection of projects
approved since 1979 is twice that. It should be noted
that, as in many rural, seacoast, peninsular areas of
Maine, the wetlands areas are virtually inaccessible
from land except by travelling out long driveways and
crossing private properties. Enforcement and inspec-
tion is thus a more challenging task.

Shoreland zonin2

Administrative procedures appear adequat-e. for
enforcement of the ordinance. Any violations _.hat- mnay
exist appear to be minor in nature and of no
environmental impact.

According to members of. the Planning Board and
the Code Enforcement Officer, a potential problern
exists in the interpretation of setback requirements:
the Town Appeals Board may be inclined to give
favorable consideration to the lateral extension of a
"nonconforming" setback. This would appear to so me as
a violation of the spirit of the ordinance or even

the state s-tatute.

Solid Waste Management

It appears that the Town, DEP and other stare
agencies have been working cooperatively . on Eruns-
wick's solid-waste program. As long as progress nas
been made, no punitive ac-cion has' been undertaken by

the State.

2.43 Camden

General Description

Camden is located. on West Penobscot Say about
mid-way along the coast of Maine. The Town possesses
an. extremely scenic and well-sheltered harbor, a
beautiful state park and campground, and numerous
attractive lakes. These features and its location on
U.S. Route I make Camden one of the most popular

tourist attractions on the coast of Maine.

The economy of the Town is based on the tourist
and recreational trade, and the population increases
considerably during the. summer season. The develop-
ment and road pattern of Camden is approximately
radial with the center being the head of Camden

Harbor.

As the previous community, Brunswick, repre-
sented a transition point in the physical character
of the Maine coast, so Camden represents a change in

the cultural character. To the south and west of

Camden, Maine's coast is relatively developed, resi-
dentially, commercially and industrially. To the north
and east., the coast is relatively undeveloped with few
urban places and little industrial development. With
the exception of Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park,
the intense pedestrian and vehicular traffic that
characterizes the summer season subsides dramatically
east of Camden.

Ammar's tl,,L@j
Lv
"HO"ho MTN
1.61t
Oki$ HALL In 9
0- MTN

ul
00

Hr_

A6
Ll MTN 6
C.0
Isq,
RocKpo
'ma,'-w

SCAt 9
MI ADOW Z.

S ACH HILL
MXH 4- OttSO go d I JAW OUT
6 wo "sit @Vffmw.& 201-Itti
@u vom

CAME

Site Location Law

The Town of Camden approved 16 residential subdi-
visions between 1972. and 1980. of these, six were
approved by the BEP. In addition, three subdivisions
were created just under the minimum 20-acre standard
for BEP review. One large-lot subdivision also fell
outside BE? jurisdiction by consisting of only four
lots.

Compliance inspections have been made by the DEP
on five of the six sites. Construction was complete on
only one of these. Two inspections were made. a year
ago; inspections before that appear to have been
irregular. Where pro .Jects had not been started, no
inspections were necessary, but several projects had
progressed significantly since the last inspections.
Based on, field observations and a discussion with the
Code Enforcement Officer, no violations were found.

A shopping center, a nursing home and a hospital
expansion were also approved under the Site Location
Law. The shopping center. was last inspected a year ago
and found to be in compliance, though construction was
not complete. The nursing home, approved in 1975, was
never built. Records of the hospital expansion in 197S
could not be located at the Augusta DEP office.

Coastal Wetlands Law

Eleven wetlands applications have been approved
in Camden, none after-the-fact. Five of these cases
involved dredging in Camden Harbor. one also included

-the construction of an extensive breakwater. Four

DRP Applications CAMDEN

No. No.
Type of of DEP Applic's No. No. No. Reviewed No. cases
Law DevelOP"Ielit P!pplic's Approved Denied Withdrawn After Fact By. Study Non-Compli.

SI te Location Subdivision 7 6 0 1 0 5 0

Other 3 0 0 0 2

Total 10 9 0 1 0 7 0

Wetlauds Walls 4 4 0 0 0 5 0

Dredging* 5 5 0 0 0 2** -

Fill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 2 2 0 0 0 2 0

Total 11 11 0 0 0 9 0

*One case incIndes extensive work on a breakwater.

**'I*wo files tinaval-lable.

***Not having received necessary approval or permit.

DEP Inspections CAMDEN

DEP FILES Case Study Field Work

No. of
Projects Appld. Inspected App'd. Inspected
Type of Reviewed Before Before Since Since Since No. of
Law Devel. by Study Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Insp. Non-Compli.

site I.ocation Subdivision 5 3 2 1 2 2 3 0
Other 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
Total 7 4 2 1 3 3 3 0

Wetlands Walls 5 2 0 0 3 2 3
Dredging 2 1 - - 0 0

Fill 0
Other 2 2 0 1 0 .0 0
Total 9 0 1 4 2 3

*One case of no application/no permit was found. See text.

cases were for seawalls or retaining walls on wet-
lands; one of these also involved minor dredging.

Two of the above projects are known to have been
inspected. Records of four were not at either DEP
Headquarters or Regional offices. Of particular in-
terest, however, is the fact that no inspections or
supervision were called for in the Board Orders ap-
proving dredging, which would appear to be a critical

operation.

One DEP inspection made in 1980 discovered a
broken sewer pipe in a State Park and a section of the
pipe on the beach exposed. This was reported to the
Parks and Recreation Bureau and has been rectified.

In the course of this study's field investiga-
tions, a newly constructed retaining wall of timber
cribbing and rock fill was found in the Camden Harbor
area. There had apparently been no DEP application or
permit issued. The wall was approximately 150 feet in
length and four to six feet high, and may have
replaced an earlier structure.

Shoreland Zoning

Approximately five years ago the Town passed a

Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which was unacceptable to
the State. in subsequent discussions with the state
Planning Office, and with a State-imposed zoning or-
dinance impending, Camden adopted an acceptable shore-
land ordinance in December of 1980.

- 62 -

There are some 482 lots in the Shoreland District,
along the saltwater shorefront, the r4egunticook River
and Lake, and Hosmer Pond. Within this area, the Town
has granted 67 permits since October.1974.

In Camden, the tax assessors have done very few
field assessments of properties for several years. It
was therefore not possible to use tax records as a
source of information for new developments on shoreland
lots. A sample of one third of the shoreland lots was
inspected for this study. The sample area also contained
36 percent of all Shoreland Zoning permits since 1974.
The areas chosen for the sample were representative of
Camden Harbor, the bay front, the Megunticook River and
one of the lakes (Megunticook).

No Shoreland Zoning violations were found during
field investigations. An effort was made during these
investigations to find new structures and to check them
against permits. ' Those structures with permits were also
checked for compliance with the setback restrictions in
the ordinance. In most cases it was possible to view any
possible construction from the road or from common
driveways, although some lots along the river extended
too far back from the road, to see possible structures
near the shore.

Solid Waste Management

Camden had been operating a solid waste disposal
facility for many years with the towns of Hope, Lincoln-
ville and Rockport at a quarry site in Rockport near the

Camden town line. Problems, of surface water contamina-
tion (with runoff into a nearby pond), unrestricted
access to mat-covered waters in the pit, and. air
pollution from the burning of refuse continued for
several years. By October 1976, a BEP order had been
issued stating that the Attorney General's office was of
the opinion that the 300 foot law was being violated,
that a new solid waste disposal facility was required,
that a closing plan for the a old dump was to be
submitted, and that a barrier to the dump quarry was to
be constructed. The plans were to be submitted by May 1,
1977 and disposal at the old site was to be stopped by
July 1, 1977.

In June, 1977, the towns requested a one-year
extension to pursue plans -they had been developing.
The DEP elected to treat the problem as an enforcement
matter with a Consent Agreement. The Agreement off July
13, 1977 specified a series of deadlines for local
consideration and approval of a new facility, submis-
sion of plans to the Board, start-up of the new
facility, and closing of the old -dump. The latter two
deadlines were May 1 and June 1, 1973, respectively.

These deadlines were not met. The towns had been
considering at least five proposals by private con-
tractors for a new disposal system. in early summer
1978, the towns approved a composting system which was
to operate in a portion of the quarry site.

A closing plan for the old dump area was submitted
on April 6, 1979, with that dump to close by October

1, 1979. This plan included rat extermination, grad-
ing, fire extinguishing, cover and, seeding, and
fencing. However, it was understood that all. of the
burned material would be deposited in the pit. A
question of possible leachate, raised several years
earlier, had not been thoroughly investigated, and
treatment of it. was mentioned in the closing plan as a
possible requirement in the future.

Records in the files indicate that DEP staff

visited the site several times in 1979-80 and observed
deviations from the composting plan, as well as problems
with the closing of the old dump. By the latter part of
1980, enforcement action was considered due to the major
alterations of the plan and the overdue submissions.
Discussions were held with the Attorney General's Office
about the possibility of taking legal action against the
towns and@or the contractor. It was decided at that time

to pursue a negotiating process.

On Dec. 2, 1980, the contractor submitted a request
to DEP for modification of the application and Board
Order. The applicant also requested removal of' a condi-
tion prohibiting storage of composted material for more
than one year, and removal of another condition requir-
ing prior approval of the constructed facility, replac-
ing it with a condition requiring approval of each stage
as it is completed. The contractor and the towns also
proposed revisions in the plan and compliance schedule.
A public hearing was held-on Jan. 30, 1981.

In a Findings of Fact and Order of April 22, 1981
the Board generally accepted the proposals. It. added,
however, a testing and monitoring plan for the refuse
processing, evidently designed to assist in the enforce-
ment phase and in controlling disposal/use of the
composting product.

conclusions

Site Location Law

Compliance Inspections were made on most pro-
jects, with 71% being inspected overall, and 100%
since 1979. While most projects 'were inspected at
least once, it was observed that construction on
several projects had progressed a significant amount
without any re-inspection.

Coastal Wetlands Law

File records indicated that no compliance in-
spections had been conducted on projects under this
law in Camden before 1979. After that date the

iiispection . rate improved. One case of a wetlands
construction for which no application had been sub-
mit.ted was discovered during field investigation for
this project.

Shoreland Zoning

After considerable negotiations between t h e
Town, the State Planning Office, and the Shoreland

Zoning Task Force, over a five year period, Camden
finally adopted an acceptab le ordinance in 1980. Field
observations in the course of this study revealed no
apparent violations of the previous state-imposed ordi-
nance, and it appears that shoreland zoning:in Camden is
being.properly administered.

Solid Waste Management

Camden has experienced persistent difficulties in
arriving at an acceptable solid waste management pro-
gram. Failures to meet deadlines and deadline.extensions

have been numerous-

The development of an operation to compost munici-
pal waste is an innovative attempt at a solution which
needs refinement. Further investigation is required to
dete rmine the suitability of the final product as a soil,
conditioner.

It appears that decisions were made early in this
case by the DEP to follow a negotiating course.through-
out, and to hold back from enforcement action. Among the
factors favoring this approach were the support of town
officials for the@ new project, the experimental nature
of the facility in which modifications can be expected
to be necessary in-the early stages of operation, and,
the apparent lack of serious environmental impact of the
operation as yet. The role of enforcement, therefore,
has been limited generally to that of inspection and
reporting of possible violations, and occasional consul-

tations with the contractor and Towns.

2.44 Winterport

General Description

Winterport is a riverfront town located on the
Penobscot River at its conf luence with Marsh Stream, a
major tributary. Water transport and associated sup-
port facilities constitute the major industrial activ-
ity in the Town. The. Winterport Docks serves as an
important source of employment when boats Are being
loaded and unloaded.

Geographically, Winterport is located within the.
sparsely developed region of 'Central Maine, 'along the
eastern border of Waldo County. Its rural character,.
relatively inexpensive land, and virtual lack of local
land use controls have made it an attractive bedroom
community for the nearby Bangor -urban. area. Population
increased 36% from 1970 to-1980, and the number of units
increased by 62% over the same time period.

Most of the concentrated development in Winterport
has occurred along its nine miles of shore length,
while large lot, . scattered development is typical
within the inland portions of the Town. Significant
but not extensive residential subdivision activity has
occurred in Winterport-over the past ten years.

Land use control at the local level is limited to

that which has been imposed by the state. There is no
comprehensive plan, building code, or town-wide zon-

ing. t e
.Shoreland zon4ng was imposed by the sta. in

TWAL Ow. ow C.-

ILL
DAM

IF
It 40
HILL
PAGE HIL

x
A
to UNCHSOL
"le W I PORT
HILL
FRED

PART1180a
HIL L-
Wll
A ff- SHC40 Lmvr
ow, POO WW-
@14 IWQM&LW

F
0OWNi'llILL
L 401 "., d" @ '.
if A
aL
REV NA
mill
L A
C,
"EDGE I MY".
0 Imalli
... SCALI
F R
K F 0
A
0 DUTC
#ATH. A
TOWN so
lp MY %!@JLDG
FARM HiLt DELAWA
- -,; fog,
i F.
Twk mt
ULM Pmff .W 0. I$All I WI
a* 0 5.40 INTO @.Ift.4 ToAlm"d m
o
V 61A
lig

NINTERF

1975. The general attitude in town about planning is
characteristic. of most small, rural communities in
Maine. There is a strong antagonism to any govern-
mental restriction of the use of private property.

The Town Planning Board and Town Manager are
sensitive to this sentiment, acknowledging that it
presently precludes initiation, development and adoption
of ordinances and regulations at the local level. This
attitude may change in the future, however, as increased
development alters the rural character of the town.

Site Location Law

Two Site Location applications for residential
.subdivisions , were f iled f ram the Town . of Winterport.
Both were filed after-the-fact. In one, nine lots had
been sold without obtaining approval. The application
was initially denied approval then finally approved
after the applicant made adequate provision to comply
with the conditions of the law. The Department began
working on the case in July of 1973. In . January of
1974, the matter was referred to the Attorney General,
and by' August of 1974 the matter was resolved. it
appears that in this case the threat of legal action
was instrumental in coercing the party in question to
properly design the subdivision and comply with the

law.

In another subdivision, the development was de-
signed to make adequate provision to comply with the
law, but BEP approval was again issued after the

DEP Applications WINTERPORT

No. No.
Type of of DEP Applic's No. No. No. Reviewed No. Cases
Law Development Applic's Approved Denied Withdrawn After Fact By Study Non-Compli.*

Site Location Subdivision 2 2 0 0 2 2 0

Gravel Pit I 1 0 0 1 0
Total 3 3 0 3 0

Wetlands Fill 2 1 1 0 1 2. 0

Road & Bridge 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Sewer Outfa'll j* 0 0 0
Total 4 2 1 0 1 2

*Archives.

Not having received necessary approval or permit.

DEP Inspections WINTERPORI

DEP FILES Case Study Field,Work

No. of
Projects App1d. Inspected App1d. Inspected
Type of Reviewed Before Before Since Since Since No. of
Law Devel by Study Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/19 Insp. Non-Compli.

Site Location Subdivision 2 2 1 0 0 1 0

Gravel Pit I I I 0 0 0 1 0
Total I 2 0

Wetlands Fill 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

fact as lots had already been conveyed.

In each subdivision, one compliance inspection was
conducted. one inspection was conducted prior to 1979,
and one during 1979.

To determine if other developments in Winterport
had occurred without BEP approval, Town Planning Board

files were reviewed and aerial reconnaissance conducted.

Nineteen subdivisions had been submitted to the Planning
Board for approval under the Subdivision Law f rom 1974
to 1980. With the exception of the two subdivisio ns
previously described, none met the criteria for a
subdivision as defined by the Site Law. It was apparent,
however, that the design of several of the subdivisions
was manipulated to fall just below the threshold of
requiring a site location application. It appears that
developer 's' are quite aware of the requirements of the
.law as the subdivision designs reflect a desire to avoid
the added time and expense of BEP review.

A gravel pit operation was approved in. 1976 with
conditions. This was an approval after-the-fact in that
eight acres had been opened since 1972 without a site
location application - having been submitted. In eight
compliance inspections from 1976 to' 1978, numerous
failures to comply with the submitted and approved plan
were noted.. These included improper vegetation and
screening, no gate, and excavation, as much as ten feet
deep as Close as six feet to a road. In October of 1978,
the Assistant Attorney General informed the owner that a
legal action might- be initiated to correct continued
non-compliance. Based on a review of the files, no
further progress has been made.

Coastal Wetlands Law

Four coastal wetlands applications have been sub-
mitted 'from within the Town of Winterport. One, a road
and bridge construction, was submitted after the appli-
cant had already filled in a portion of a wetland with
gravel. The applicant was denied approval because the'
project would destroy productive habitat for water fowl,
would adversely affect the value of abutting property,
and would constitute a threat to public health, safety,
and welfare.

The BE? ordered the applicant to remove the gravel
.,fill to restore the site. The application was denied
in August of 1975, and subsequent compliance inspec-
tions, three in 1976 and three in 1977, revealed -no
work done to restore the site. Finally in April, of
1978, a compliance inspection. found the s ite to be

restored.

The second coastal wetlands application from Win-
't-erport was to upgrade a barge and bailey bridge from
a temporary to a permanent structure. This was ap-
proved without incident.

The third application involved a bridge and road
construction project of the Maine Department of Tran-
.sportation which was approved. And, the fourth. was an
application for a seWer outfall submitted by the Town
of Winterport. This file was in the archives and it
was not noted on the file card whether the project was
approved or denied.

Shoreland Zoning

In i974, a state-imposed Shoreland Zoning ordinance
was put into effect in Winterport. This ordinance was
considered interim and placed all of the shoreland area

in the Resource Protection District.

In July of 1975, the Board of Environmental Protec-
tion and the Land Use Regulation Commission revised
mandatory, shoreland zoning for the Town of Winterport,
effective in August of 1975. All shoreland areas were
plac ed in a Limited Residential-Recreational or Resource
Protection District. In November of 1976, the ordinance
was amended to. change four shoreland lots from Limited
Residential to General Development District to permit
the operation of two commercial facilities: the Winter-
port Marina and the Winterport Docks.

The two commercial facilities mentionea above are
the only activities which have received shoreland.zoning
permits from the Town Planning Board. In theopinion of
the Town Manager and the Chairman of the Planning Board,
the shoreland zone is not condusive to'development as it
is essentially marsh and tidal flats.

To ascertain whether development, may have taken
place in the shoreland zone without Planning' Board
approval, tax assessment records for Winterport were
examined. Each lot in. the shoreland zone was reviewed
from 1975 to 1979 to determine any marked increase in
the valuation placed on buildings. Particular atten-
tion was paid to lots which indicated a change from no
buildings tax to some amount of buildings tax in the
four year period, indicating structural development in
that interval. Changes in the valuation rate of the
town were considered in determining potential building
activity.

.75

This analysis, revealed, from tax records alone,
fifteen lots which' contained land within the sho'reland
zone on which building had taken place. Field investi-
gation was then required to determine where. on that
lot building had occurred. Aerial reconnaissance along
the shoreline of Marsh Stream and the Penobscot River
.revealed only one potential instance of construction
within the shoreland zone. Subsequent field inspection
on the ground showed that although a corner of the lot
in question was within 250 feet of the shoreline, the
structures and attendant construction activity fell

outside the shoreland zone.

Solid Waste Management

In its only application under thi's law, the Town of
'Winterport requested a variance to dispose of solid
waste closer than. 300 feet to a tributary of Marsh
Stream. Upon review, the BEP found that the solid waste
disposal area was in fact within twenty feet of the
tributary and was located on a steeply sloping (20-30%)
parcel unsuitable for a landfill site. The application
was denied and the Town was ordered to submit plans and
relocate the solid waste operation to a suitable site.
The area in violation has subsequently been landscaped
and closed to dumping.

Solid waste disposal now occurs on an adjacent area
tributary. Drainage.problems
more than 300 feet from the
have- been corrected, monitoring wells installed, and a
sampling schedule has been established. Better covering
techniques have led to a reduction of rats, gulls,
litter and fires. The Town presently plans to close this
dump and transport solid waste to a neighboring town.

Conclusions

The general attitude of the Winterport population
has been somewhat antithetical to the notion of planning
and regulation. During the years immediately following
passage of the Site @ Location Law and Alteration of
Coastal Wetlands Law, regulated activities were consis-
tently initiated in the absence of obtaining necessary
approvals. In those instances, the DEP showed consider-
able persistence in eliciting an application or in
requiring rehabilitation of a degraded environment. In
recent: years, it appears that, at least in the case of
residential subdivisions, developers are adjusting.their
plans to fall short of the threshhold which triggers DEP

review.

There has been very little development in the
shoreland zone in Winterport since the imposition by the
state of a shoreland zoning ordinance. As the more
rural, inland portions of the Town become developed,
there is the potential for building *and other regulated.
activities along Marsh Stream. With annual inspection
for tax assessment purposes, ' it is not expected that
such development will go unnoticed. It is probable,
however, that. the Planning Board will meet resistance
from some residents in obtaining shoreland zoning permit
applications.

2. 45 DEER ISLZ

General Description

Deer Isle is an island cc mmunity located in Penob-
scot Bay. It is a part of the Acadia Archipelago, a
chain of several thousand islands scattered about the
focal point, of Mt. Desert Island and Acadia National
Park. With its complex coastline of coves, harbors,
points, necks, ledges and islands, Deer Isle has by far
the greatest shoreline length of the six case study
communities at one hundred twenty-six miles.

The character of Deer Isle is that of a classic
downeast fishing community. The development pattern is
rural and dispersed. Coastal access is the primary
locational determinant and the road pattern reflects
this with numerous spurs and dead-ends extending to
the complex coastline from major roads running along

the interior.

The economic base of the town is largely dependent
upon marine resources, with most employed residents
involved in the harvesting, processing or sale of
finfish or shellfish. Significant seasonal population
also has . a stimulating effect on the local economy
during the summer months.

Site Location Law

The Deer Isle Planning Board has reviewed 13
subdivision proposals* since 1974. Ten of these propo-
sals have been approved and three have been denied.

uldt

W. -41

5i
Tffift
OKL

wr 0.4
gill
MM
1 vt@

VW 'i US."
- - ;- -
VA&

;A
IDEFJI (S
e '71

im"

tz 7

STONIN
MAW,=

F:J

119V MAP

jz
Pvt. @t-
Cx-
4 WAN .4

The majority of the approved subdivisions have been
small both in acreage and in the@number of lots created.
Two subdivision proposals were just under the threshhold
for.@,review under the Site Location Law,.one of which was
deni ed by the .Deer Isle, Planning Board. None of . the
subdivisions reviewed by the planning board required
Site Location approval.

The construction of athletic fields beside the
senior high school @ is the only development which has
been reviewed under the Site Location law in Deer
Isle. This project was approved in 1975 with condi-
ti6ns attached. The file does not indicate that the
conditions of approval were met, nor does it indicate
that a compliance inspection was conducted. An inspec-
tion of the site by project staff did not reveal any
.instances of non-complIance with approved plans.

@No developments appear to have been undertaken in
Deer Isle in violation of the Site Location Law.

Coastal: Wetlands Law

'Thirteen coastal wetlands applications have been
reviewed. by the DEP. A summary of the types of
developments which have been proposed can be found in
the. accompanying table., Eleven of. the projects have
been approved and two of 'the applications were with-
drawn. Ten of the thirteen project files were reviewed
during this study.

"'iles indicate that the DEP has conducted very.
The
few wetlands compliance inspections in Deer Isle. Only
iwo of the ten projects reviewed. (all of which were

DEP Applications DEER ISLE

No. No.
Type of of DEP Applic's No. No. No. Reviewed No. Cases
Law Development Applie's Approved Denied Withdrawn.After Fact By Study Non-Compli.*

Site Location Institutional 1 1 0 0 0 0

Coastal Wetlands Crib Pier 2 2 0 0 0 1 0

Fill 2 2 0 0 0 2 1

Dock & Ramp 5 4 0 1 0 3 3

Structures I 1 0 0 0. 1 0

Road I 1 0 0 0 1 0

co
Walls -2 1 0 1 0 2 2
Total 13 11 0 2 0 10 6

Not having received necessary approval or permit.

DEP Inspections DEER ISLE

DEP VILES Case Study Field Work

No. of
Projects App'd. Inspected App'd. Inspected
Type of 11eviewed Before Before Since Since Since No. of
I'aw Devel. 1)y Study Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Insp. Non-Coinpli.

Site Location Anstitutional I 1 0 0 0 0

Coastal Wetlands Crib Pier 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0
Fill 2 1 0 0 1 0
Dock & Ramp 3 -3 0 0 0 2 1
Structures 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ga Road 1 0 .0 0 1 .0 1. 0
Walls .2 2 0 1 0 1 0.
'Votal 10 7 0 2 3 0 5 1

approved) had -been inspected by enforcement personnel.
The inspections have occurred since 1979 and were of
projects. which were approved prior to that date. None
of the three projects approved since 1979 have been
inspected.

Six violations of the law have been identified.

The violations weee uncovered through a review of
planning board's shoreland zoning files and building
permit records, and the use of aerial photography and
aerial reconnaissance. The six violations include

@three docks, two retaining walls, and one fill. Half
of, the violations were identified on the small islands.
within the Deer Isle municipality.

Five wetlands projects were field-inspected by
project staff. Of the@ five projects, one was found to
be in non-compliance with approved plans. More fill
was used in building a,ramp than was approved.

Shoreland Zoning

The Town of Deer Isle adopted a Shoreland Zoning
ordinance which became effective on July 1, 1974. In
August, 1975, state imposed . Resource Protection D is-
tricts were established around Georges Pond,- Lily
Pond, and Torrey Pond. In November of that same year,
a letter was sent to the Planning Board identifying

areas in the Town which should be zoned Resource

Protection.

In April, 1976, Deer Isle amended its ordinance.
Within the next four months, both the BE? and LURC.

accepted the amendments and repealed the portions of
the ordinance which had been state imposed.

The ordinance has subsequently been amended twice,
in 1977 and 1981. No indication has been found that

the state has reviewed and accepted the more recent

amendments.

The Town of Deer Isle has made an effort to inform
residents of, the requirements of Shoreland Zoning.
Information on . shoreland zoning has.. been sent to
property owners accompanying tax notices. The Planning
Board has. generated publicity on the need to comply

with the Ordinance.

The Planning Board has spent time reworking cer-
tain aspects of the Shoreland Zoning i n consultation
with the State Planning Office. The Board has tried to
develop an Ordinance which is reasonable, consistent,
and easily understood. The Chairman of the Board' feels
that the communication between Deer Isle and the.Sta.te
Planning Office has resulted in some ccnst-ructive
changes in the administration of the Shoreland Zoning
program. Most of these changes have related to the
wording of the "Minimum.Shoreland Zoning Ordinance."

The Planning Board has maintained orderly records
of shoreland zoning applications since 1974. A specia-1
form was developed specilfically for administration of
the ordinance. While the form asks for a significant
amount of detailed information on the propcsed pro-
ject, the amount of information actually provided was
slim. The absence of detail.ed information made it

impossible for project staff to conduct field inspec-
tions to assess compliance with approved plans.

Municipal files indicate that 56 projects have
been approved under Shoreland Zoning. The Planning
Board has approved 45 projects and the code enforce-
ment officer has approved 11. Only three applications
to the Planning Board have been denied. The types of
developments which have obtained approval are as fol-

lows:

Planning Board CEO
Approval Approval

dwellings 14
storage bldgs./garages 4
commercial bldgs./uses 4 -

additions 3 8

bunk houses 3

timber harvesting 3

docks 2

seawalls 2

other 10 3

45 11

Seven instances of non- compliance with Shoreland
Zoning were discovered. The majority of the cases were
found on islands.within the Town's boundaries. The
violations had not occurred during any particular time
period since Shoreland Zoning went into effect. The
Chairman of the Planning Board claims that. some of the
violations occurred on islands which are not actually
within the municipality. He reported that repeated
efforts- to get the State to recognize the "true"
boundaries of the Town have been fruitless.

Solid Waste Management

The Town of Deer Isle has been using the present
disposal site for over ten years. The site is
adjacent to a marsh area which drains into Torrey
Pond in, the north-central portion of Deer Isle. The
site has been inspected over a half -dozen times by
the State since 1967. There are no records of any
inspections between 1967 and 1977

In 1977, the Board of Environmental Protection
denied a 'request from -the Town for a variance from
the Solid Waste Management Regulations related to
daily cover, earthwork and refuse handling equipment
(during the winter months),, and attendant and lock-
able access,gate. The Board found that the variances,
if granted, would 'not result in an environmentally
sound method of solid waste handling.

In 1978, Deer Isle gained approval for a septic
tank and cesspool waste disposal - site. In 1981, the
BEP approved a Solid Waste Operational Manual for the

Town.

While the solid waste disposal facility has been
in violation of state regulations, the Town has been
slowly addressing those aspects of the operation
which need imcrovement. Town officials feel tha-tl_-- they
have a good relationship with the DEP. They feel that
the Department has been "understanding" in deal ing
with the Town's lack of compliance with some regula-

tions.

The DEP staff, on the other hand, feels that.
there is a need for improving the situation at the
present landfill'. There is, concern about leachate
affecting the water quality of Torrey Pond. At the
same time, there are other facilities in the general
area which pose more serious problems and are the
focus of the DEP's attention. Improving the facility
in Deer Isle is simply not a high priority.

Conclusions

Deer Isle is a community where there is concern
about compliance with environmental statutes. This
attitude, however, is tempered by what is a locally

considered "reasonableness". To the credit of the
Town, an effort has been made by municipal officials
to inform residents of their responsibilities under
both state statues and municipal ordinances, as well
as to work out inconsistencies and lack of clarity in
Shoreland Zoning-with state officials.

While some instances of non-compliance have
occurred,, this does not reflect a lack of conscien-
tiousness on the part of local officials and citi-
zens. The convoluted. nature of the shoreland, the
presence of a number of islands within muninicipal
boundaries, and the fact that many people make a
living from fishing all contribute to the difficulty
of strict law enforcement. More than half of the
instances of non-compliance idenified occurred on
islands which the. Chairman of the. Planning Board
claims are not within the municipal boundary.

DEP enforcement activity in Deer Isle has been
minimal. Only two of the twelve projects approved by
the state have been subject to compliance inspec-
tions. And, since it is not a high priority commu-
nity, Town contact with DEP enforcement personnel in
relation to solid waste management has not been exten-

sive.

2.46 Pembroke,

General Description

Of the six case study communities investigated in
this study, Pembroke is the most remote community
located approximately seven miles from the Canadian
border in the eastern portion of Washington County. The
road distance from the DEP's Bangor regional office is
approximately 120 miles, making field visits to this
community a full day affair.

The center of -the. town, the village of Pembroke,
is located at the head of tide -of the Pennamaquan
River, and thus the town includes freshwater riverine
shoreline, brackish estuary with extensive mud flats,
and saltwater coast fronting on Cobscook Bay.

Pembroke also has by far the smallest population
of the six case study towns, with a 1980 population of
922. Population has increased 32% since 1970, and
housing has increased 31% in the past ten years. Much
of , the road network in the town runs roughly parallel
to river and ocean shoreline, and an examination of
U. S. G. S. topographic quadrangle (photo-revised in
1977) reveals that most of the new development in

Pembroke has occurred on these shoreline roads.

Site Location Law

No site location applications have been filed from
Pembroke., Aerial reconnaissanc'e, however, revealed a
large building under construction which was surrounded
by a significant area which had been stripped of

A
vo.
FFE7 'IL
OWN INA"
A 7Z
$as lop
IRA
4
A-4
: F

I-HIN ID

WIN
e Spy.
is
!c:L

gff.
M
TM;
Mi-
MIZE

PERR,y
WILL
I
IATU
for
too*
m
A i4PA
kilti

A9T P ;'i
ORT

0-1
fc... 0 v

-4

"of
&am bill

vegetation. This activity appears to fall under the
jurisdiction of the law.

Two gravel pits were observed along the Pennama-
quan River, both large enough to come under the law.
Since these were not shown on the 1977 photorevised
topographic map, neither of these operations would be
grandfathered under the law.

Coastal Wetlands

Two applications under this law were filed from
Pembroke. One involved a culvert extension and rip-rap
submitted by the Maine Department of Transportation.
which was approved with a.,condition. The DEP ap-
parently has not inspected this project for compliance
with approved plans. Project staff inspection found
the project to be in compliance.

The second application was for- construction of a
dam and development of a bird sanctuary. This was
denied. The files gave no indication that a compliance
investigation was conducted in this case.

No instances of non-compliance with the Coastal

Wetlands Law were found in Pembroke.

Shoreland Zonina

'The Town has no records of the approval of any
developments under Shoreland Zoning. To some extent,
this reflects the small degree to which development
has occurred alon g the shore since 1974. At the same
time, five dwellings were identified by project staff
which appear to be within 250 feet of the shore and

have been built since 1974.

91 -

DEP @Ppliqations PEMBROKE

No. No.
Type of of DEP Applic's No. No. No. Reviewed No. Cases
Law Development Aeplic's Aptioved'Denied Withdrawn After Fact By_Study Non-Compli.*

Site Location @O 0 0 0 0 0 3

Coastal WeLlandS 2 1 1 0 0 0

Not having received necessary approval or permit.

DEP Inspections PEMBROKE

DEP FILES -Case Study Field Work

No. of
Projects App'd. Inspected App'd. Inspected
Type of Reviewed Before Before Since Since Since No. of
Law Devel. by Study Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Jan/79 Insp. Non-Compli,

Site Location 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coastal Wetlands 1 1 0 0 .0 .0 1 0

Solid Waste Management

Inspection of the Town dump in the early 1970 Is
revealed that refuse was being placed within approxi-
mately 10 feet of the Pennamaquan River and that there
was evidence of resulting surface water pollution at.
the site. A variance of the 300 foot law was requested
by the Town and denied in July of.1974.

In July of 1976, a schedule of compliance with the
Solid Waste Management Regulations was ordered for
Pembroke. Subsequently, the Town has closed its solid
waste facility and now transports its waste to a
pxivate site in Edmunds Township.

The Edmunds Township site will be closed in the
near future. The site is being used by a number of
communities in the area, in addition to Pembroke. IDEP
enforcement personnel have been working closely and
vigorously with local officials from the area in
looking for a regional solution to, the solid waste
disposal problem. Pembroke has not been an active
participant in the search for a regional solution.

Conclusion

Due to its remote geographic location and the
small amount of development which has occurred in
recent years, enforcement activity has been nearly
non-existent in Pembroke. It appears, however, that
increased enforcement would be desirable In light of
the number of instances of non-compliance uncovered
during this study. Pembroke is the only one of the
case study communities within which Size Location
violations were identified and had a higher than
average number of Shoreland Zoning violations.

The attitude of municipal officials is, not
surprisingly, lax concerning enforcement of environ-
mental,statutes. This reflects the fact that there-is
so little. development and so much undeveloped land
coupled with the isolation of the area and modest
life style of the residents. The general feeling of
officials seems to be: why go looking fortrouble.

2.5 Findingsof Compliance Investigations

The following findings, are based on the results
of the six community case studies and extensive
discussions with people from across Maine's coastal
area. The case studies provided a quantitative exam-
ination of the compliance situation within a small
but diverse sample of coastal communities. The
results ofthe interviewing were more qualitative in
nature and played an important role in the formula-
tion of findings. The interview results. compensate
for difficulties inherent in compliance investiga-
tions and provide a context within which to evaluate
the representativeness of the case study results to

the entire Maine coast..

Interviews, were conducted with a significant
number and wide variety of people. People interviewed
includ ed: DEP personnel, Assistant Attorneys General,
state and federal personnel, municipal officials
including code enforcement officers, assessors, plan-
ning board members, town managers and selectmen,
Department of Marine Resources Coastal Wardens and
Area Biologists, staff of regional planning commis-
sions, and individuals who have reported.instances of
non-compliance and who have been involved in coastal
development. The experience of these people ranged
across the entire coastal area.

1. Between 10% and 20% of the develoomie-nt activity

within Maine's coastal zone has occurred without
obtaining the necessary state and local approvals
under the Site Location, Coastal Wetlands, and Shore-
land Zoning Laws.

Thb results of the case study investigations
reveal that 15% of the development which.has occurred

within the six coastal communities and falls under
the jurisdiction of the Site Location or Coastal
Wetlands Law has not obtained the required state
approval. This figure is based on the identification
17 out of 134 developments subject to the laws which
had never received state approval.

In addition, the review of files revealed that
7% of the DEP applications (10 out of 140) from the
case study . communities had been submitted and
reviewed-after development activity had already pro-
ceeded. Of the 10 after-the-fact applications re-
viewed, 6 were*denied and 4 were approved.

Under Shoreland Zoning, 182 permits were issued
by the six communities. Twelve developments were
identified by project staff as having occurred with-
out the necessary local review, indicating a non-com--
pliance rate of 7%.

Interviews from throughout Maine's coastal area
generally support the results of the case study
investigation. There was nearly unanimous acknow-
ledgement that some development does occur in the
absence of necessary local and state approval. The
perception of the degree of non-compliance ranged
considerably. Some people felt that only a few,
scattered. instances of non-compliance have occurred.
Others felt that the laws are, generally disregarded.
The consultants feel that the true figure lies

somewhere between these two extremes.

The consultants are aware of weaknesses in the
case study results. It is difficult to identify
certain types of non-compliance, such as wetlands
fills. Reliance on municipal records, such as build-
ing permits and tax records, as a cross-check against
DEP and planning board files is not foolproof. And,
the. nature of the coast in terms of accessibility
affected the reliability of field investigations in
identifying instances of non-compliance that may not
have been revealed through the review of records. on
t whole, the consultants feel that the non-com-
plian e results of the case study invest igat ions are
low.

sed on the case study results, discussions
with people from throughout the coastal area, and a
sensitivity to the strengths and weaknesses of the
case study investigations, it is estimated that
between 10% and 20% of the development within the
coastal zone has occurred without the required
approvals.

2. Non-compliance with the laws is the result of
both ignorance and attitude,.

The two primary reasons for non-compliance with
legal requirements are ignorance of the law and the
attitude. of some people that resists governmental.
control. Some people are simply not aware of their
responsibilities under the law. This was found to be
the case among both year-round and seasonal

residents.

Defiance of the law also occurs. Some people
resent needing government approval for development of
he

their land. As the result, development activity is
undertaken without consulting witlh state or local
officials, despitCe the presence of laws.
- 9P

A third reason for non-compliance is the percep-
tion that gaining state or local approval is a long,
complicated and expensive process. Some people are
simply fearful of the unknown. Others feel that they
cannot afford the time and/or money involved in
gaining the required approvals.

The degreelof compliance with the laws has been
improving over the past few years.

Since the adoption of the laws, the general
public has become increasingly aware of the legal
requirements, thereby decreasing the number of
instances of non-compliance resulting from ignorance
of the law. Individuals planning to undertake regula-
ted activities are more likely now to be aware of and
comply with the necessity to submit a permit applica-
tion. Likewise, adjoining property owners and 'other
citizens are now more likely to recognize and report
potential violations.

Enforcement proceedings and public education ef-
forts by the DEP have contributed to greater public
awareness of legal responsibilities. However, due to
lack'of resources, these efforts by the DEP have not
been extensive. As the result, as* indicated pre-
viously, some instances of non-compliance are still
attributable to ignorance of the laws.

4. Local officials and individuals are not
familiar with the specific requirements of the Laws.

While there is good general awareness that some
types of developments must be reviewed by the state
and/or a municipality prior to construction, many

99 -

people are not familiar with the specifics of the
laws. This was particularly apparent in talking with
municipal officials about the Site Location and
Coastal Wetlands Laws, and with DEP enforcement
personnel about the nature of citizen complaints.

This lack of familiarity is attributable to the
language of the statutes (perceived as being compli-
cated and vague), the absence of awareness of
policies, regulations and interpretations related to
the statutes which have developed through the admin-
istration of the laws, and the absence of a well
developed public education program.

The ramifications of this lack of familiarity
are multiple. First, some people undertake develop-
ment activity without the required approval. Second,
people get-either no information or misleading infor-
mation when asking municipal officials about legal
responsibilities under state law. And, municipal and
state enforcement. personnel spend time investigating
citizen complaints about activities which are not in
fact regulated by state law.

5. Non-compliance with terms and conditions-of
ap roval has occurred at a rate greater than 30%.

Based on the results of case study investiga-
tions, 10% of the Site Location developments and 24%
of the Coastal Wetlands projects inspected by the
consultants were found to be in non-compliance with
terms and conditions of approval. Project staff
inspected about 5001,0* of the sites in the case study
communities for which applications had been submitted
under both the Site Location and Coastal Wetlands

100

Laws. Two of the twenty-one Site Location develop-
ments and ten of the forty-two Coastal Wetlands
projects had not adhered to terms and conditions
placed on project approval.

However, these figures on non-compliance are
considered by the consultants to be low. Compliance
with terms and conditions of approval in many
instances could not be assessed due to the nature of
the conditions, the timing of the on-site inspec-
tions, and difficulty in gaining access to the sites.
Conditions of approval often relate to methods and
timing of construction activity. Most of the projects
could not be evaluated for compliance with these
conditions of approval due to the scheduling of
on-site inspections in relation to project develop-
ment. Many of the projects inspected had already been
constructed. Also, some conditions relate to the use
of specific construction materials, i.e., certain
size or type of material in retaining walls or road
bases, which can only be verified during construc-

tion.

in light of the difficulties experienced in
evaluating compliance with conditions of approval,
the consultants fee 1 that this form of non-compliance
occurs at a considerably higher rate than the case
study figures indicate. Based on. case study results
and experiences, discussions with local and state
officials and knowledgeable individuals, and the
judgement of the consultants, it is estimated that
more than 30% of the projects approved under the Site
Location and Coastal Wetlands Laws are -not construc-
ted in conformance with approved plans and terms and
conditions placed on project approval.

101

No evaluation of the degree of compliance with
Shoreland Zoning approvals was undertaken. The gen-
eral absence of detailed records on approvals under
this law made such an evaluation virtually imposs-
ible. The majority of the municipal records reviewed
lacked specifics an the location, dimen sions, nature
of construction materials, and method of construction
of approval projects.

A variety of reasons were identified for the
occurrence of . non-compliance with condition of
approval. These reasons include: the absence of
enforcement of conditions of approval; financial
considerat ions; the desire to complete construction
as quickly as possible; lack of understanding of the
importance of certain conditions; and lack of famil-
iarity with, conditions of approval on the part of

contractors.

5. No systematic inspection of approved projects
for compliance with conditions of ap2rovals has.been
conducted.

Review of DEP files and discussions with DEP
personnel revealed that the absence of systematic
inspection of approved projects under the Site Loca-
tion and Coastal, Wetlands Laws -for compliance with
conditions of approval. The reasons for this situa-
tion are discussed in more detail in Section 3.5 of
this report and are primarily based on the level of
staffing of the DEP's Enforcement Division..

The results of the case study inves,61-igations
revealed that 59% of the approved Site Location
projects. and 30114 of ".-he Coastal Wetlands approvals

102

had been inspected at least once by the DEP staff.
Due to the likelihood that all project inspections
were probably not noted in the files, the above
percentages are likely to be low.

At the same time, the files and discussions with
DER staff indicated that inspections have not been
conducted systematically. In some instances, inspec-
tions were made before any development activity had

been initiated or after all construction work was
completed. There is little evidence that the timing
of inspections has been. related in any way to the
timing of project construction. As explained earlier,
such timing is critical in order to determine compli-
ance with many of the conditions commonly placed on
approval.

Municipal records concerning Shoreland Zoning
approvals provided virtually no information on com-
pliance inspections. This responsibility usually
rests with the code enforcement officer. Discussion

with code enforcement officers indicated considerable

variability in the degree to which inspections are
made for compliance with conditions of approval.

7. The results of investization into the environ-
mental consequences of non-compliance are incon-
clusive.

An attempt was made to evaluate the consequences
on the coastal environment of non-compliance with the
laws reviewed and non-compliance with condition of
.approval. However, based on contractconstraints, the
results of this analysis must be considered incon-
clusive.

103

There are a number of factors which contribute
to this-finding. The consultants had little opportun-
ity to inspect projects which were actually under
construction. It is during this phase that certain
types of environmental impacts, such as erosion and
sedimentation and disruption of fisheries and wild-
life, are likely to -occur. This portion of the study
was also limited to visual observation which is not
sufficient for determining the effects of development
on air quality, surface-and groundwater quality, etc.
Additionally, the study did not afford the opportunity
to explore the cumulative effects of incremental
development in any of the case study communities.

..Based on the study.results, one observation can
be made. with the exception of illegal filling of
wetlands areas, visual inspection of development
sites revealed few instances of environmental degrad-
ation. The few observed occurrences were discolora-
tion of surface water apparently as the result of
leachate from solid waste disposal facilities, and
minor cases of erosion and sedimentation.

a. ' It is difficult to draw definite conclusions

concerning the regional variation of instances of
non-compliance.

In very general terms,. there was a tendency to
find more actual and perceived instances of non-com-
pliance in the eastern portions of Maine's coastal
area. However, other factors identified during the
study related to non-comnliance tends to diminish the
significance of this observation.

104

The remoteness, difficulty of access to coastal
areas, and the attitude of people in the eastern
portion of the coast all contribute to a situation
which appears ripe for disregard of environmental
statutes. Many of these factors, however, are present
in other portions of the coast. And, these factors
are not the., only elements involved in determining
non-compliance trends.

One factor which significantly affects com-
pliance trends is the attitude of municipal
officials, contractors and developers, members of
the general public, and title attorneys. In the
absence of the. resources to conduct a vigorous
enforcement program (discussed later), the DEP is
very dependent upon public cooperation to ensure
compliance with the Site Location and Coastal Wet-
lands Laws. If a.muni cipal official, such as a code
enforcement officer or member of the planning board
is particularly concerned about compliance with the
laws, that person can have a significant effect by
informing people. of their legal responsibilities.
This same role can be filled by an individual or
small group of concerned citizens within a community,
though their effectiveness may not be as great as
someone who has an official position. Also, if
contractors, developers, and title attorneys are
aware and sensitive to the state laws, compliance
with the laws is greatly enhanced.

This same situation comes into play in the
adminstration and enforcement of Shoreland toning and

105

Solid Waste Management. The presence of conscientious
code enforcement officers or people concerned with
the proper location and operation of a municipal
solid waste facility can have a great influence on
the degree of compliance with those laws.

The presence or absence of "eyes on the street"
appears to be random in geographic nature. As a
result, very general regional trends related to
instances of non-compliance break down when viewed on
an individual community basis. In light of the small
number of case studies, conducted, and based on the
experience of the consultants, it is difficult to
draw definite conclusions concerning the regional
variation of instances of non-compliance.

9. Compliance with the Solid Waste Management Act
has improved significantly over the past few years,
but there is still room for major improvement.

The results of the case study investigations
are indicative of the Solid Waste Management situa-
tion across the coastal zone. Municipalities vary
widely in their compliance with the law. Some commun-
ities have state-approved facilities which are being
operated properly. Some have or use state .-approved
facilities which are having difficulties in comply-
ing with the law. Others have or use -Facilities.
which have.not been approved and which do not pose
serious environmental problems. And, still others
have facilities which are not approved and do pose
serious problems.

106

While there are a number of communitiess which

use facilities which are not in compliance with the
law, the situation has improved significantly over
the past few years.- Based on a report prepared by
Arthur Lerman -Associates earlier this year, in 1980,
42% of the state's population was being served by
facilities which were 'operating satisfactorily, as
compared with only 12% in 1977. This improvement
is the result of increased public concern about pro-
per solid waste disposal and more vigorous adminis-
tration of the state solid waste management. program,
including enforcement of the law.

Resolving instances of municipal. non-compliance
takes a significant amount and duration of time.
Some of the obstacles to further.and more rapid im-
provement in solid waste management compliance in-

clude:

- The attitude of some Maine; residents that the dis-
posal of solid waste is not a problem which de-

serves much attention;

- The perception that suitable disposal sites are
impossible to find;

- The improper operation of disposal facilities;

- The 'hesitancy on the part of some Maine communi-
ties to spend the money necessary to rectify un-
desirable situations;

- The hesitancy on the part of some Maine communi-
ties to engage in regional approaches to solid
waste management;

107

- The changing state of solid waste disposal tech-
nology;

- State laws and regulations which place more empha-
sis on the operational aspects of disposal facili-
ties rather than siting criteria; and

- Lack of stability in the in-state laws and regula-
tions related to solid waste management.

108

3.0 Effectiveness of Administrative Systems

3.1 Introduction

The second major task of this study involved the
evaluation of the administrative systems which are
re-sponsible for enforcing the four laws. The basic
questions to be addressed include:

- Why have problems in relation to compliance with the
four laws occurred?

- Did most problems with the enforcement of the
Site Location, Coastal Wetlands2 and Solid Waste
Management Laws occur before the DEP's review and
enforcement staffs were expanded in 1979?

How effective are the current administrative
systems?

The findings presented in the following sections
are based primarily on two sources of information. An
extensive series of interviews was conducted with
people involved with all aspects of enforcement
of the laws, iDclud ing Personnel of the, DEP, State
Planning Office, Attorney General's Office, Department
of Marine Resources, municipal officers, and private
individuals who have familiarity w@th_.the administra-
tion of these laws. Material relevant to these ques-
tions was also reviewed. This included annual enforce-
ment reports and DEP and State Planning Office files.

109

3.2 General Background

The administration of the four laws involves a
number of state agencies and divisions within
agencies. This structure varies from one law to
another. Also, the administration of shoreland zoning
is markedly different from the other three laws in
that major responsibilities rest with municipalities.
The- following brief description of the administrative
structure is intended to provide an overview for the
'more detailed discussion found in subsequent sections.

The responsibility for the administration of the
Site Location, Coastal Wetlands, and Solid Waste Man-
agemenc Laws rests, for all practical purposes, in the
hands of state government. There are provisions in
both the Site Location and Coastal Wetlands Laws for
the delegation of administrative responsiblity to mun-
icipal government with state government overview. How-
ever, this option has not been pursued by more than a
handful of communities under each law and is not
considered significant in the overall administration
of the laws when reviewed from a coastwide or state-
wide perspective.

Three state government offices have primary
responsi bility for the enforcement of the three laws.
They are the Divisi6n of Review and Planning and the
Division of Enforcement, both within the DEP's Bureau
of Land Quality Control, and the Natural Resources
Section of the Attorney General's Office. Add:L-
cionally, the Department of Marine Resources. provides
assistance to the DEP in the enforcement of che
Coastal Wetlands Law through che Coastal Warden
Service.

1.10

The Shoreland Zoning Act is administered through
an entirely different scheme. In this case, the pri-
mary responsibility for the administration of the law
rests with municipal government. State government
plays an overseer's role in the process and this
function is.fulfilled by the State Planning Office'.

3.3 Bureau of Land Quality Control

The Bureau of Land. Quality Control has the,
responsibility for the administration and enforcement
of the Site Location, Coas-tal Wetlands, and Solid
Waste Management. Laws within Maine's coastal area. In
order to evaluate the effectiveness of the 'Bureau in
meeting this responsibility, it is necessary to under-
stand the context within which the fulfillment of this
responsibility occurs.

The Land Bureau is responsible for the administra-
cion of a number of state environmental, laws includ-
ing: the Site Location Law, the Coastal Wetlands Law;
the Solid Waste Management Act; the Great Ponds Act;
the Minimum Lot Size Law; the Small Hydroelectric
Facilities Law; and a law governing the disposal of
septage. The responsibility extends throughout the
entire state, though in unorganized townships there is
overlapping jurisdiction with the Land Use Reaulation
Commission. The Bureau is responsible for coordinating
with various federal agencies in the administration of
a number of federal programs. The Bureau is also
responsible for coordinating its efforts with other
state agencies in developing policy and admini-stering
other state programs.

The Land Bureau is differenc from the ocher

Bureaus within the DEP in that most of the laws it:
administers were adopted ac the initiative of the
State Legislature, rather Chan being cied into an
existing federal program. As a result, the Land Bureau
has received less federal financial support than the
other Bureaus. Bureau efforts in administering the
Solid Waste Management Act have received modest
amounts of financial support from the federal Environ-
mental. Protection Agency. And, the federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management has provided financial support
for administrative purposes, including the hiring of
additional Bureau personnel.

Three divisions make up the Land Bureau. Of the,
three, the Division of Review and Planning and the
Division of Enforcement are most important in adminis-
cering and enforc ing DEP's laws.

3.4
Divisio=.o-f Raview and Planning

The Division of Review and Planning is responsible
for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board
of Environmental Protection on applications for
permits issued under the laws administered by che
Bureau. The Review Division also coordinates with
other stace and federal agencies on policy review and
administrative matters.

The Review Division has processed over 5,000
applications from throughout the State since the early
1970's. During the fiscal years 1978-1980, the Divi-
sion reviewed 2,122 applications. Over this same
period, 643 Site Location and 503 Coastal Wetlands
appli&.cations were processed.

Applications Processed by Review Division
*1978 1979 1980 Total

Total all laws 639 587 896 2122
Site Location 239 174 230 643
Coastal Wetlands 175 150 178 503

*Fiscal Years

In the past three fiscal years, the percentage of
applications processed under, Site Location and Coastal
Wetlands laws has increased from 46% to 64% of the
total number reviewed by the Division. All of the
wetlands projects are, obviously located within the
coastal area, while roughly 1/3 of the Site Location
projects were located along the coast in FY 1980.

Besides reviewing applications, the Review Divi-
sion plays other roles related to enforcement of the
laws. This Division is most often responsible for
answering 'inquiries on whether ..a particular project is
subject to one of the state laws. The Division recom-
mends to the BEP what terms and conditions should be
.placed on approvals and is responsible for ensuring
that certain terms and conditions are met. It also
processes and makes recommendations on after-che-fact
applications.

3.5 I)ivision of Enforcement

The Division of Enforcement performs investigative
.and enforcement duties including complaint resolu-
tions, compliance inspections, envi'ronmental educa-
tion, and technical assistance. The Division is also
involved in taking enforcement action, including t:he
negotiation of consent agreemencs.

The state has been divided into four districts for
the purposes of enforcement: Southern, Central, Down-
east, and Northern. The Division presently has
regional offices in Portland, Augusta, and Bangor and
hopes to reopen a Pre'sq'ue 7-sle--of-fice in late 1981.
(See map on page 17.)

The history of the Enforcement Division is worth
reviewing -because it is indicative of the general
situation which has existed in the Land Bureau since
it was established. From 1973 to 1979, the Enforcement
Division was essentially comprised of two staff people
who had all of the enforcement responsibilities men-
cioned earlier. During 1974/75, an attempt was made to
expand the enforcement staff through use of the. CETA
program. Bangor and Portland offices were opened, in
1974 and closed in 1975 because of a rapid turnover of
.CETA people and a change in state government adminis-
tration. The Portland office was reopened a year later
and staffed by one of the two permanent staff people
who had been working in the Augusta office.

The staffing situation improved in 1979 as . the
result of two actions. Four people were hired on
funding provided by the federal Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program. This resulted in the reopening of the
Bangor office with two staff people and the bolstering
of the ranks in Augusta and Portland to two apiece as
well.

Later that same year, the State Legislature
authorized three staff positions for the Division, two
full-time and two seasonal. The full-time positions
replaced two of the CZMI positions. One of the seasonal
Posit-ions has yet to be filled due to a freeze an
hiring. The second seasonal position was Jffi Iled in the
Spring of 1980.
114

In 1979, the Division was also given the responsi-
bility for enforcing the Solid Waste Management Act.
Over the past two years, a significant amount of staff
time has been devoted to solid waste. As a result, _the
Division has had little opportunity to "catch up" on
those responsibilities which had been unfulfilled for a
number.of years due to a shortage of staff. For example,
based on the FY 1980 Enforcement District reports,
compliance inspections during that year were conducte
on 6% of the 4019 "currently active projects" under the
Division"s jurisdiction. . Fifteen percent of the Site
Location projects in the state as a whole and 16% of
these projects located in the coastal area were inspec-
ted. Six percent of the coastal wetlands projects were
inspected.

Currently, the Enforcement Division consis,ts of
four per anent sta, ions an two positions
funded by the Coastal Zone program. The funding of the
later positions appears to be secure until M-4rch-,-
Be@ond this date, the situation is not clear. A
fifth permanent staff person is expected to be hired
by the end of 1981 as the result of the combination of
the two seasonal positions authorized by the Legisla-
ture in 1979.

Two general observations can be made about the
operation of both -the Review and Enforcement Divi-
sions. First, neither of the Divisions take a hard and
rigid line in fulfilling their responsibilities. While
both have established procedures for accomplishing
their work, there is a quality of informality that
generally exists as long as it is not abused. The
Enforcement Division has best reflected this quality
in its enforcement of the Solid Waste Management Act
e
..Jhe
t e

115

over the past few years. The Division has tried to
work cooperatively with communities in resolving
problem situations by providing technical assistance
and being flexible in adherence to compliance
schedules as long as the communities are being con-
scientious and proceeding in good faith to remedy the
situation. The Review Division reflects this qualicy
in working wi6h applicants in trying to resolve poten-
cial conflicts or overcome problems in relation to a
development proposal as long as the applicant is
willing to make necessary changes to bring the project
into compliance with review standards.

The second observation relates to the present
level of staffing in relation to responsibilities.
Both Divisions tend Cc be reactionary rather than
preventive in their approach to fulfilling their
responsibilities. The Enforcement Division for years
has had little time to do anything other than react to
situations as they arise. There has been almost no
opportunity to try to prevent occurrences of viola-
tions before they happen or, for that matter, to go
looking for violations before they are brought to the
Division's attention by an outside source. The Review
Division reflects this posture in its review of appli-
cations in that it doesn't go looking for potential
problems but, rather, relies on issues brought Cc its
actencion by outside sources, including state review-
ing, agencies. Also, the development of policy on
review issues is usually in reaction Cc situations
rather than thought out ahead of time.

In fairness to the Divisions, in the absence of
having the resources to fulfill all their responsibi.1-
icies, both Review and Enforcement have prioricized
their activities to maximize efficiency. The escab-
lishmenc of priorities is based on their assessment of

what can be done to address those situations which
pose the greatest threat to the environment.

3.6 Attorney General's Office

Another piece in the "enforcement puzzle" is the
Assistant Attorneys General. The Natural Resources
Section of the Civil Division of, the Department of
Attorney General is responsible for providing legal
assistance to the DEP and- other state agencies having
principal responsibility for natural resources and
environmental protection. The equivalent of three and
one-half staff people are assigned to the DEP, as a
whole. Each of the Assistant Attorneys General provide
assistance to all of the Bureaus within the Depart-

ment.

The responsibilities of the Assistant Attorneys
General in relation to the Department are considerable
and include: representing the Department in court;
reviewing consent agreements and decrees and Board
orders; assisting the staff in interpreting the laws;
developing and reviewing regulations; providing formal
and informal opinions on law; providing legal assis-
tance to Board members during BEP meetings; attending
public hearings and rulemaking hearings; and, drafting
and reviewing legislation.

The Assistant Attorneys General also have a
responsibility under the Shoreland Zoning Statute. If
a municipality fails to administer and enforce shore-
land zoning, whether municipally adopted or state
imposed, the Attorney General's office has the author-
ity to seek a Superior Court order requiring municipal
officials to cease being delinquent.

117

The Assistant Attorneys General readily admit that
they have more work than can be done. This situation
is exacerbaced by the length of time it cakes to
p.repare for and go to court and the slowness of the
court system.

In response to the h;avy workload on the Assistant
Attorneys General and the ramification of this on
resolving enforcement cases, the DEP developed a con-
sent agreement policy. This policy was adopted by the
DERin October, 1978 and began being used in 1979.

The consent agreement policy allows the enforce-
ment staff of the Department to negotiate with an
alleged violator to resolve violations of the law
without having to go to court. A consent agreement
involves the voluntary admission of wrongdoing on the
part of the violator and, in addition, includes boch
monetary penalties and a commitment to take corrective
or preventative action.

Despite the success of the consent agreement
policy, the workload an the Accor-neys General is still
significant. Presently, DEP's "lawyers" have forty co
fifty cases in court and an equal number of cases
pending. This is in addition to the other responsibil-
!ties noted earlier.

The status of cases being handled by the Assistant
Attorneys General under the laws subject to this study
is as follows: five coastal wetlands cases are in
referred status and are not high priaricies (RecencLy
a wetlands case of importance was given a high prior-
icy and processed through Che courts "in record

118

time.") five site location cases are in court with
one case pending action by the Attorneys General (Site
location cases are usually handled promptly because
they tend to be cases considered to be of signifi-
cance.) ; and, five solid waste management cases are in
court and three are referred (these cases represesnt
the limit which has been placed on solid waste cases
by-the A.G.).

The Shoreland Zoning Task Force has asked the
Assistant Attorney's General to prosecute three muni-
cipalities for failure to properly administer Shore-
land Zoning. The AGs have not taken any action due to
their workload and their assessment that "failure to Vaal
enforcell@ is difficult to prove in court and the remedy d4-
is little more than a "slap on the wrist."

Priorities are established on the cases which are
referred to the Assistant Attorneys General. The
Attorneys feel that only cases of major legal or
environmental significance are appropriate for hand-
ling by their office. As the result, there is no

me
Lhod in place to resolve those cases of non-compli-
ance with the four laws which are not considered
important by the ACs and which cannot be handled
throu-h the voluntary consent agreement procedure.

For the past year, the Attorneys General have been
meeting with DEP enforcement personnel on a quarterly
basis to provide information on progress which is
being made on cases and to reevaluate priorities.

3.7 Department of Marine Resources

The Coastal Wardens within the Department of
Marine Resources' Bureau of Marine Patrol provide

119

enforcement assistance to the DEP in the administra-
tion of the Coastal Wetlands Law. This assistance was
first formalized in a memorandum of understanding
which' took effect in August, 1973. The terms of the
agreement have been reviewed and revised a few times
since then.

Under the original agreement, Coastal Wardens were
authorized to issue citations in the event of a
violation of the wetlands statute when no permit is
held by the violator. DEP personnel-recain sole
authority to seek enforcement action when a condition
of approval has 'been violated. Wardens were encouraged-
to assist in the, enforcement of compliance with condi-
tions of approval by reporting obvious violations to
the DEP.

Cooperation between the Department of Marine
Resources and the DEP in enforcing the Coastal Wet-
lands Law has definite advantages, particularly to the
DEF. There are ove -r thirty Coastal Wardens stationed
along the coast, and they are usually quite familiar
with what is going on in their areas. Wardens can
issue a summons in the event of a violation allowing
for a quicker resolution of a case through District
Court action than through either the consent agreement
process or action by the Assistant Attorneys General.

A number of factors influence the effectiveness of
Coastal Wardens in providing enforcement assistance to
the DEP. The Wardens have a number of responsibilities
which they must meet. Enforcement of the Coastal
Wetlands Law is sometimes considered a secondary
responsibility. Some Wardens are more inclined to do
their own work rather Chan "someone else's". Or-her
Wardens are not familiar with the workings of law.

120

3.8 State Planning Office

The Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act was passed by
the
State Legislature in 1971. Originally, municipali-
ties were given two years to prepare and adopt an
ordinance which was consistent with the intent of the
law. Just prior to the or igIinal deadline of July 1,
1973, the Sta-te Legislature granted a one year delay in
the effective date of the law and ordered that by
December, 1973, standards be developed by the State for
use by municipalities in adopting their ordinances.
This was the result of towns not having taken concerted
action to meet the requirements of the law and the
State not having provided adequate, guidance to the

towns.

Just prior to the 1974 deadline, a significant
number of ordinances were@ submitted. Given the absence
of staff and the political climate, the decision was
made to accept all ordinances submitted, regardless of
quality, and make adjustments later. For those communi-
ties which had not submitted an Ordinance, the state
imposed an Ordinance which zoned all shoreland areas as
Resource Protection.

Durina the next two ears, all the ordinances in
y
the state were systematically reviewed for compliance
with the minimum standards. Workshops were held with
communities which were having particular difficulties.
The state-imposed ordinances were amended to better
reflect the character of the shoreland area.

Since 1977, work has progressed slowly in cretting
0
communities to make adjustments. in their ordinances. In
1980, sixty-four towns with deficient ordinances were
given six months to make the required amendments. In

1981, approximately fifteen communities do not have
?
approved ordinances and 110 municipalities have state-
_@imposed ordinances.

The State Planning Office presently has the follow-
ing re.sponsi bili ties in coordinating the administration
of Shoreland Zoning 'on the state level: prepare state-
imposed ordinances for Board of Environmental Protec-
tion and Land Use Regulation Commission adoption;
prepare the paperwork necessary to repeal state-imposed
ordinances; keep files on current ordinances and com-
munications with towns; provide information and assist-
ance to municipal officials in fulfilling their admin-
istrative responsibilities; interpret local ordinances;
review shoreland zoning proposals; and, follow-up on
complaints and investigate potential violations.

During the period between 1973 and 1977, one full-
time person provided staff support for the administra-
tion of the state's responsibilities under the Law. The
staff person worked with the Shoreland Zoning Task
Force which was made up of two members of the Board of
Environmental Protection and two members of the Land
Use Regulation Commission. The amount of staff time has
.been diminishing since 1977 to the point in 1981 where
only 30% of one person's time is being spent on
Shoreland Zoning administration.

The amount of State Planning Offtce. staff time
devoted to Shoreland Zoning has been limited to the
amount of financial assistance provided by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD has
provided financial support since 1974. Current funding
ends in July, 1981 and is not expected Co be concinued.

122

The degree to which the State Planning Office will
continue to provide staff support in administering
shoreland zonina is unclear at the present time.

3.9 Findings of Administrative Systems Investigations

1. TheLand Bureau of.the DEP has never had the
resources necessary to effectively meet its enforce-
ment responsibilities.

As discussed earlier, the Land Bureau has never
had a sufficient level of staffing to be able to
develop a systematic program for meeting its enforce-
ment responsibilities. Enforcement action is best
characterized as being in a day-to-day crisis manage-
ment mode.

The ability of the Bureau to effectively enforce
the laws being reviewed by this study. within the
coastal zone has to include consideration of the
Bureau's full responsi-bilities. It must be realized
that the Bureau's responsibilities are statewide in
nature, include enforcement of other state statutes,
and go beyond simply looking for violations of the
laws and conducting compliance inspections.*

2. Public cooperation has been a significant ele-
ment in enforcement efforts to date.

The public has played a significant role in the
enforcement of the laws. This has occurred t:hrouch
0
voluntary compliance with the laws and by citizen
identification of potential violations.

While the nature of the laws is such that public
surveillance will always be a necessary element of an

123

enforcement program, its importance in Maine has added
significance since the DEP personnel have, as yet, not
had the opportunity to do any regular compliance
investigations themselves. Up until 1979, due to
staffing levels, enforcement action was almost exclu-
sively undertaken in response to citizencomplaints.

3. The Enforcement Division and the Attorney Gen-
eral's Office do prioritize their res2onsibilities in
an effort to manage their time efficiently.
In an effort to manage their time efficiently,
both the DEP assigned Assistant Attorneys General and
enforcement" staff prioritize their responsibilities.
The principle underlying the establishment: of prior-
Icies is the identification of situations which'pose
the greatest potential harm to natural environment.
priorities are re-evaluated periodically.

There are difficulties -with- this priortization
process. As the result of prioritization, some indi-
vidual cases are not vigorously pursued and some laws
do not receive much, if any, enforcement attention.

4. In the absence of an understanding of the en-
forcement staffing situation, some members of the gen-
eral public have become disillusioned with the DEP.

The general environmenal consciousness of Maine
residents and the increasing awareness of the exis-
cence of state environmental statutes has resulted in
high expectations of the DEP. At the same time, few
individuals are aware of some of the internal diffi-
culties which affect the Department's performance,
i.e., the lack of adequate staffin6g, statutory limit:a-
cions, ..etc.

124

The DEP's inability to satisfy the public's
expectations is resulting in disillusionment of the
public and threatens the credibility of the Department
and the integrity of the laws. This situation is
particularly significant due to the importantrole, that
the public plays in enforcement activity.

The consultants would like to note a surprising
degree of disillusionment which came out, through the
interviewing process. This attitude was articulated by
a wide, variety of people, some of whom have been
strong supporters of the Department and the passage of
environmental safeguards in the past. In - all
instances, people interviewed were unaware of the
staffing situation within the Department. The degree
to which this attitude exists among Maine residents
cannot be ascertained based on the work done during,
the project.

5. The level of staffing of Assistant Attorneys Gen-
eral is not sufficient to satisfy the demand for
legal action by the DEP.

The Assistant Attorneys General readily admit all
cases referred to their office cannot be pursued. Only
cases considered to be of major environmental or legal
significance are taken on. Some of these cases take
considerable periods of time to get through the
judicial process. Action on cases is sometimes very
slow due to the Assistant Attorneys General's inabil-
ity to find the time.

-.125

6. DEP enforcement personnel are reluctant to refer
cases to the Assistant Attorneys General.

The DEP enforcement personnel are well aware of
the discretion exercised by the Attorneys General in
selecting cases to pursue and the length of time it
takes to get cases resolved through the court process.
As the result, the enforcement staff Is reluccant co
refer cases to the Attorney General's office. The
staff realizes that in consent agreement negotiations
with violators, the possibility of referral to the
Attorney General's office is often a hollow threat.

The consequences of staff reluctance to refer
cases are multiple. In some instances, no remedy can
be obtained,for cases of non-compliance. Also, nego-
tiations for a consent: agreement are sometimes pro-
Cracted due to the inability to refer a case to the
Attorneys General and expect any action. Consent
agreement negotiations can go on for years and consume
an appreciable portion of a staff person's time.

7. The expansion of the Enforcement Division's
staff in 1979 is just beginning to have an effect on

the effectivenesss of enforcement.

In 1979, the Enforcement Division was able to
expand its staffing level by four people as the result
of a Coastal Zone Manaaement aranC and action by the
State Legislature. How ever, the immediate effect of
the additional staff on the effectiveness Of enforcement
was minimal due to an increase in the Division's
responsibilties. The Division was assigned the
responsibility of enforcina the Solid Wasce Management
Law, including some administratIve functions under
chat law.

126

This year, the time which must be devoted to
solid waste management has decreased. This affords the
Division the opportunity to begin catching up on other
responsibilities. Though this will re.sulr- in an en-
forcement capability which is considerably greater
than existed prior to 1979, the level of sta*ffing is
still not sufficient to fulfill effectively all of the
Division's responsibilities..

8. Existing staffing levels.have limited the-degree
of coopera:tion possible between the Division of review
and Planning and the Division of Enforcement.in
regards to enforcement.

The Review and Enforcement Divisions are the

administrative and enforcement arms.of the Land Bureau.
As discussed earlier, the Divisions are essentially
partners in the enforcement of state environmental
laws. However, since both Divisions- are understaffed,
the pressure to fulfill the basic responsibilities of
each affects their ability and willingness to work
cooperatively in developing a well-coordinated enforce-
ment program.

Close cooperation between the two Divisions is
desirable for a number of reasons. First, both Divi-
sions need access to -project files in order to ensure
compliance with conditions of approval. The Review
Division is responsible for ensuring compliance with
conditions that relate to additional submittals by the
applicant, such as a sedimentation and erosion plan.
The Enforcement Division is responsible for on-site
compliance.. At the present time, project files are
kept in Augusta for a one-year period following

127

approval. This makes it difficult for enforcement
staff members to conduct compliance inspections,
especially during the period when construction of the
project is occur-ring.

Second, it is important that Review staff docu-
menc all negotiations with a developer so that En-
forcement staff know exactly what has been approved.
In recent years, the Review staff has been more
conscientious about properly documenting files, though
time pressures occasionally cause a breakdown in the
system.

Third, the Review staff has a good understanding
of projects by the time approvals are issued. This
understanding includes potential problem areas in
development construction and the attitude of the
developers in complying with state requirements. This
information would be valuable to enforcement staff,
particularly since time is not available to inspect
all projects. At.the present time, such an exchange of
information occurs only occasionally and on an in-
formal basis.

9. The documentation of violations is a difficult
and time consuming process.

The consultants can attest to the difficulties of
documenting instances of non-compliance with the Law.
One of the basic problems is obtaining documentation
that the development was not in existence prior to the
effective. date of the laws and therefore is not
grandfachered. This is usually done Chrough the use of

128

aerial photographs, building permits, or other sources
of reliable land use data. In the absence of a
centralized source of such information, the documenta-
tion process can be very time consuming.

.Certain types of development, such as fills and
gravel pits, are extremely difficult to document.
Given time pressures on enforcement staff, instances
of non-compliance related to these types of develop-
ments are not vigorously pursued unless the environ-
mental damage iq particularly significant. In the case
of gravel pits, the staff considers instances of
potential non-compliance unenforceable and the cases
are not pursued.

10. DEP enforcement of the Solid Waste Management
Act emphasizes the desirabilit7 of volunteer com-
pliance.

Enforcement staff attempt to work closely with
municipalites in gaining compliance with the Solid
Waste Management Act. Staff members provide technical
assistance and coordinate efforts to draw communities
together to discuss regional solid waste disposal
solutions.

Enforcement action is usually taken only when a
community is not willing-to make an honest effort in
making the improvements necessary to ensure compliance
with the law.

This enforcement approach is slow in gaining
results. In some cases, discussions between enforce-
ment personnel and town officials have been going on
for years. Additionally, the present level of staffing
limits the number of municipalities that the Depart-
ment can work with at a particular point in time.

.129

At the same time, given the political and economic
considerations involved, this approach has its advan-
tages. As it is, the Department has been accused by
some communities of being heavy handed, which is not
supportable by a review of the files..

11. The performance of Coastal Wardens is quite vari-
able in their enforcement of the Coastal Wetlands Law.

Discussions with Coastal Wardens indicated that
the vigorousness with which they enforce the Coastal
Wetlands Law is variable across the coast. Some
Wardens are very conscientious and work closely with
DEP enforcement staff. Others indicated that enforce-
menc of the Coastal Wetlands Law is not a high
priority and that little enforcement action is likely
to be taken. Some Wardens were not familiar with some
of the specifics of the statute and the regulations
and policies used in administering the Law.

12. Local administration and enforcement of Shore-
land Zoning is extremely variable.

There is a great deal of variability in the
effectiveness of municipal administration of shoreLand
zonLncr. The quality of administration ranaes from
vigorous to virtually non-exis-ent. For the most part,
however, the law is working surprisingly well consid-
ering the minimal investment made by the State. There
isconsiderable room for the improvement of MUnl.CLPaL
administration of this law.

130

13. Administration of Shoreland Zoning on the state
level has been only minimally supported.

State government has made virtually no investment
in the state administration of Shoreland' Zoning. HUD
funds have been used exclusively to provide staff
support. These funds supported one full-time person
for a few years at the beginning of the pro-ram. In
recent years, the level of support has decreased to
the point this year where funding has ceased.

At - the same time, the state administration of
Shoreland Zoning has been vigorous, though modest in
scale, as the result of the conscientious staff person
who has been with the program since its inception.

While administration has been good given the
level of staffing, there is room for improvement. More
active oversight of municipal administration is likely
to decrease the wide variability in the quality of
local administration. Also, some municipalities. would
take steps to improve the effectiveness of administra-
tion if technical assistance and support were avail-
able.

131

4.0 Recommendations

In light of the findings presented in previous
sections of this report, the following recommendations
are made for improving the enforcement of the four
environmental laws under review:

1. Increase the levels of staffing of the Division of,
Enforcement, the Division of'Review a Planning, and
the Attornif_-Ganeralls office.

The present levels of staffing of the Division of
Enforcement, Division of Review and Planning, and the
Attorney General's Office assigned to the DEP are not
sufficient to meet present responsibilities. This sit-
uation is most serious for the Division of Enforce-
ment, even though its responsibilities under the Solid
Waste Management Act have diminished.

The staffing situation poses several serious prob-
lems which were identified earlier in this report,
including limited ability to identify and remedy in a
timely fashion instances of non-compliance with the
laws and to systematically ensure compliance with
conditions of approval. While it is possible to make
structural changes which would incrmase the efficiency
of the present, staff, overall these changes would not
solve the staffing problem and, in some instances,
would simply shift responsibilities from one agency to..

another.

The Division of Enforcement has the greatest need
for more permanent staffing. While the Coast-al Zone
Management program has been of some assistance in
providing staffing support, the uncertainty of

continued funding poses stability and continuity
problems. Programs like CZM should be used for supple-
mentary purposes rather- than to fill basic staffing
needs.

It is recommended that the Division of Enforcement
be staffed at the following levels: three people
should staff each of the three regional offices in
Vortland, . Augusta and ,Pan4or; ;two people should staff
the"Presque Isle office; and, there should continue to
be an administrator of the Division located in Augusta.
seven people over the.
present level. of staffing, not including the two posi-
tions presently funded by the Coastal Program.

Staffing at this level would allow the development
of a long-term program to meet enforcement responsi-
bilities. The Division could move beyond it's present
reactive mode of operating. The additional staff
should allow the Division to fulfill responsibilities
which have not been fully met in the past.

Additional staff would also allow the Division to

do more public education, an integral part of enforce-

ment for which the Division has had little time.

Through more public education and closer work with
municipal officials, the, Division's workload could 'be
decreased as the result of more and better informed

citizen surveillance, more and better information con-
cerning state. laws being available from municipal
officials, and more local delegation of administrative
and enforcement responsibility under the Site Location
and Coastal Wetland Laws.
p
e

e
men':;
Le
0 1
@es in
staff

jnue to

@Ugusta

133

The level of staffing recommended for the Enforce-
ment Division may not be necessary on a permanent
basis. After a few years of operation, at. the recom-
mended level, the Division should be reviewed to
determine if the level of staffing is still necessary.

The additional staffing needs of the Divisi.on of
Review and Planning appear to be more modest, though
more study is necessary to determine the actual
extent. The Division meets most of its responsibil-
ities now, though the timing and quality of its work
need to be improved. Quality of work means the degree
to which applications are scrutinized for compliance
with the standards of the law. This Division could
also be improved by increasing its ability to obtain
expert assistance in reviewing aspects of projects
that are beyond the expertise of the existing staff.

The Attorney General's office staff assigned to
the DEP operate for the most part "under the gun." An
additional staff member would be desirable. Also, some
pressure on the staff could be relieved by developing
a mechanism for handling the enforcemenk, of minor
violations. This is discussed in more detail later.

2. Include standard conditions of approval in Board
Orders which ensure that anclicants and contractors

read and understand the Orders.

Several changes in Board, Orders could improve
enforcement efforts.

First, Board Orders should include, as a standard
condition of approval, the provision that the appli-
cant and the contract"or, if any, sign and return a

134

statement that they have read and understand the order
and conditions of approval. There is evidence that
some applicants read only that portion of the Board
Order which indicates approval of their project and,
therefore,. are not aware of conditions placed on
approval. Also, contractors are not necessarily
informed by a i- landowner of terms and conditions of
BEP approval.

A second standard condition of approval should be
the requirement that the owner or. contractor notify
0 the appropriate enforcement field office just prior to
.commencing construction and at certain critical check
points during the construction of a project. This
would allow enforcement personnel to maximize the effec-
tiveness of their inspections thereby avoiding repeated
visits to a site where no progress had been made.
Enforcement personnel should also have the discretion to
call a pre-construction conference. This provision would
also ensure that contractors, as well as owners, are
well aware of the details of Board Orders.

Transfer project files to regional enforcement staff
in a timely fashion.

At present, Land Bureau policy is that project
files are kept in Augusta for one year after project
approval before being transferred to regional offices.
I
Sometimes it is necessary for the Review Division
staff to have access to the files in order to ensure

compliance with some conditions of approval, such as
preparation and submission of an erosion control plan.
This delay in forwarding case files to the regional
offices means that compliance inspections and enforce-
ment are delayed. The files are sometimes not received
by enforcement staff until project construction has
been completed.
135

?roject files which need not be kept in Augusta
should be promptly forwarded to district offices. For
those files that must be retained, copies of appro-
priate materials, such as maps, plans, and Board Orders,
should be forwarded to the regional enforcement offices
as soon as possible after BE? action has been taken.

4. More guidance provided to the Division of Enforcement
by the Division of Review and Plannin

The Review Division staff could greatly assist in
improving the- efficiency and effectiveness of enforce-
ment efforts by passing on their familiarity with and
understanding of approved projects to enforcement per-
sonnel. Observations such as which applicants were
cooperative and which were difficult to deal with and
suggestions as to what aspects of the project are more
likely to cause problems would be useful. The consul-
tants realize that performing such a function will take
some time on the part of Review staff. However, the time
involved could be minimized by using a standard sheet to
be included in each project file and limiting comments
to brief, handwritten notes.

5. Develoo a mechanism for handling minor violations.

The possibility of developing a mechanism for
prosecuting minor violations of the laws in an expedi-
fashion should be explored. This would have a
number of positive effects. First, expeditious en-

forcement of known violations would maintain the inte-
grity of the law, an important consideration with
regard to public image. Second, such a mechanism would
allow the DEP to take affirmative action agains-c
violators without going through the consent agreement
process, which can be quite time consuming. Finally,

any mechanism to decrease the workload of the Assis-
tant Attorneys General is desirable.

Three possible ways of implementing this recommen-
dation were identified through the course of this
study. Time did not allow for an examination of the
strengths and weaknesses of each approval. The three
possibilities are:

1. Give DEP enforcement personnel constabulatory
power to issue summons and represent the State
in , District Court.
2. Amend the structure of t@ie administrative

court process to expand its jurisdiction to
cover unlicensed violators. At present the
court only has the power to revoke licenses.
.3. Give the Board of Environmental Protection the
authority to make enforcement judgments and
impose fines.
Shorten the negotiation time for consent agreements.

The consent agreement process should be revised to
create a mechanism for shortening the negotiation
time. Presently, consent agreement negotiations can be
protracted, taking up -large amounts of staff time.
This could be accomplished by providing a financial
.incentive to the violator. If negotiations are clomple-
ted within a certain period of time (for instance,
three months), this will be considered in determining
VJ"
the magnitude of the fine. Larger fines would be
levied for protracted negotiations.

7. Develop better coordination between Local Code En-
forcement Officers and Enforcement Division personnel.

137

Enforcement Division staff should develop a better
working relationship with municipal code enforcement
officers. municipal CEO's are usually well informed, on
development activity which is occurring within their
communities. Their assistance could be very helpful in
identifying instances of non-compliance.

Code enforcement officers would gain a better
understanding of state statutes by working more
closely with Enforcement Division staff. They could be
a good source of information at the local level for
people planning development which may require state
approval. Increased familiarity with the DEP statutes
might enhance the likelihood of municipal delegation
of DEP authority.

The consultants realize that, at the present time,
there is great variability in the performance of local
code enforcement officers. However, the quality of
CEOs has been improving and more contact with Enforce-
ment Division personnel could be of benefit to both

i2arties.

In working with Code Enforcement Officers, the DEP
must communicate its own enforcement priorities. This
will avoid the situati@on where a CEO looks for certain
types of instances of non-compliance only to find that
the Department does not consider iti. an important
priority and will not pursue the matter further.

Encourage more assistance from Coastal Wardens in en-
forcing_the Coastal Wetlands Law.

coastal Wardens have been very helpful to the DEP
in the enforcement of the Coastal Wetlands Law. At the

138

same time, the variability of performance of indi-

v1dual Coastal Wardens indicates that there is room
for improvement.

More contact should occur between the DEP and the
Department of Marine Resources and between the Coastal
Wardens and the Augusta office of the Department of
Marine Resources reiterating the responsibility of
Coastal Wardens in the enforcement of the Coastil
Wetlands Law. Also, DEP enforcement personnel and
Coastal Wardens should meet periodically to discuss
enforcement issues and priorities and to keep abreast
of changes irL the statute.

9. Develop a public educational program on the four

environmental laws

In the course of this study, it became very
apparent that . the "eyes of the community" are a
1
valuable asset in reporting instances of potential
_@Iolation of environmental laws. many instances of
non-compliance have been discovered and prosecuted as
the result of an observation and complaint made by a
ember of the public.

A more concerted educational program about the
four environmental laws could help cultivate a better
relationship between DEP and the public. The general
level of understanding about the purpose and provi-
sions of these laws could be enhanced, for example, by
a poster campaign which could display informational
material in municipal buildings, schools, post
offices, etc. Increased public understanding would
result in fewer instances of non-compliance due to

1,19

ignorance, a better citizen monitoring network, and a
greater public understanding of the responsibilities
of the Department.

10. Develop baseline data on activities subject to regula-
tion under t@e four environmental laws

One overriding problem that. was encountered in
this project was the lack of" land use data which
showed the extent and location of regulated activities
at certain points in time. This is of critical impor-
tance in determining instances of non-compliance with
the law. The dating of a gravel pit or a wetland fill
is important to be able to determ?ne if that activity
has been grandfathered by a particular law..

As resources become available, it would be ex-
tremely useful to develop baseline data for the coastal
area on all regulated land use activities that have
taken place at a given point in time after the effective
date of environmental. statutes. All future inspections,
surveys and inventories could then be compared to that
baseline. Aerial photos of the coast, taken in 1978, are
available through the Army Corps of Engineers, New
England Division, and would be extremely useful in
developing such a baseline data inventory.

An inventory of this nature would save enforcement
staff considerable time in identifying and documenting
instances on non-compliance.

Transfer some of the State's Shoreland Zonina resmonsi-
bilities from the State Planning Office to the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection

140

In or der to increase the efficiency of state
administration of Shoreland Zoning, it is rec,ommended
that certain responsibilities currently handled by the
State Planning Office be transferred to the Department
of Environmental Protection. The DEP should be given
the responsibilities under Shoreland Zoning of inves-
tigating citizen complaints, identifying potential
violations,. and working with municipal officials in
thie-administration and enforcement of Shoreland Zoning
Ordinances. The State Planning Office should retain
the responsibilities of providing staff support to the
Shoreland Zoning Task Force, handling administrative
paperwork, and reviewing and re-evaluating both mini-
mum state standards and municipal shoreland zoning

ordinances.

The State Planning Office has no enforcement or
investigative capabilities. and is not easily access-
ible to the municipalities since it, has only one
office in Augusta. At the same time, SPO has planning
and administrative capabilities ..which are needed in
order to ensure the effective and efficient operation

of the law.

The DEP, on the other hand, has investigative and
enforcement capabilities and is more easily accessible
through its regional offices. Responsibilities, under
Shoreland Zoning would provide the DEP further oppor-
tunity to develop a good working relationship with
municipal officials. This would be of considerable
assistance in the Department's administration of other
state statutes. This is especially the case in
instances where a development must be approved on both
municipal and state levels.

141

12. Increase the State commitment to the administration of
Shoreland Zoning

The wide variability observed in the local admin-
istration of shoreland zoning could be improved
through an increased - level of state . administration.
While local administration "is surprisingly good in
light of the minimum investment in the administration
of the law by the state, there is considerable room
for improvement.

It is not -suggested that the state become heavy
handed in fulfilling its responsibilities under the
law. Rather, the state should re-evaluate minimum
standards and municipal ordinances, have a greater
presence in overseeing municipal administration, and
be in a better position to provide technical assis-
tance to municipalities.

In light of the termination of federal funding
which has supported the modest state administrative
effort in the past, the issue of state commitment to
the law will have to be addressed. Significant
improvement in the effectiveness of administration of
the law on both the municipal and state levels could
be achieved by shifting state administrative respons-
ibilities, as indicated in the previous recommenda-
tion, increasing the level of staffing of DE?'s
Enforcement Division (Recommendation Number 1), and
providing state funds for staff support of the law
within the State Planning Office.

142

One full-time staff person working on shoreland
zoning within the State Planning Office is desirable
at least for a year or two. This level of staffing
would allow for a smooth transition of designated
responsibilities to the DEP and an increased vitality
in the administration of the law. After this period,
it may be acceptable to decrease the State Planning
office staffing under this law to less than a
full-time position.

143

111MINNIN
, @ 6668 14103 0199

F
pr

F
F
F
lp