Maine's Coastal Program procedures for coastal shorefront access and protection, shoreline erosion assessment and mitigation, energy facility siting

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

Ie-
00x
aine s

Coastal Progra

Procedures for:

Coastal Shorefront Access and Protection

Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Mitigation
w
Energy Facility Siting

TC THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE
224 REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1976 AMENDMENTS TO THE
M2
M35
M

1987 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT.

CREDITS

The Draft Report on "Shorefront Access and Protection
Planning in Maine" was prepared by the Bureau of
Parks and Recreation of the Maine Deportment of
Conservation

and,

The Draft Report on "Energy Facilities Siting" was
prepared with the assistance of the Maine Office
of Energy Resources.

Financial assistance for the preparation of this
document has been provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

FOR FURTHER IN FORMATION

Contact:, Maine's Coastal Program
State Planning Office
Natural Resource Planning Division
189 State Street
Augusta, Maine 04333

Telephone: (207) 289-3154

SHOREFRONT ACCESS
AND
PROTECTION PLANNING
IN MAINE

Fulfilling Requirements of Section 305 (b) 7 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976.

CONTENTS

0. INTRODUCTION

0.1 Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
0.2 Requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act . . . . 2
0.3 Purpose of the Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING AREAS REQUIRING ACCESS OR PROTECTION

1.1 Assessing Access Needs . 0 . I .. . . . . . I I . . 4
1.11 Public Facilities for Boats Program . . . . . * . 4
1.12 Inventories of Public Coastal Areas . . . . . . 4
1.13 Analysis of State Park Use . . . . . . . . 9 . . 5
1.14 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 7
1.15 Surveys and Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . I . 7
1.16 Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.17 Visual Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2 Assessing Protection Needs . . .
1.21 Critical Areas . . . . I . 0
1.22 Wildlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.23 Rivers . . . . . . . 13
Wildlife Areas and
1.24 Wetlands 14
1.25 Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.26 Historic Sites . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.27 Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 16
1.28 Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2. DEFINITION AND IDENTITY OF BEACHES

2.1 Confusion of Terms . . . I. . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . 18
2.2 Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 Definitions . . . : * * * ' ' * . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.31 Access Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.32 Protection Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING POLICIES AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES

3.1 Access Policies and legal authorities . . . . . . . . . 26
3.11 Coastal Wetlands Act 28
3.12 S horeland Zoning Act . . . . . 30

3.2 Protection P,olicies and legal authorities . . . . . . . 31

4. DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

4.1 Areas of Particular Concern . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . 33
4.2 Areas for Preservation or Restoration . . . . . . . . . 33

5. LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND FUNDING PROGRAMS

5.1 Federal 34
5.2 State 35
5.3 Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

COASTAL SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND PROTECTION

IN MAINE

0. INTRODUCTION

The importance of the coast in Maine to the recreational and economic
well being of both residents and out-of-state visitors is self-evident.
However, in recent years patternsof shoreland use have been changing.
Some shore areas convenient to many users have been usurped by com-
mercial developments, landfills, or industrial sitings. Major beaches
have been markedly altered by shoreline developments, dredging pro-
jects, and the construction of seawalls. Additionally, access to
shorelands traditionally used by the public has been diminished by
permanent and seasonal residential developments and widespread
changes in coastal land ownership, As a result, shoreline, and
particularly beach access, is evolving into an issue of far-reaching
social, legal, political and economic significance,

A number of strides toward maintaining and improving access to the
ocean in Maine have been realized in the past few years, HoweverP
Maine faces some unique problems as well , problems which will re-
quire attention and resolution soon if many of the shoreline use con-
flicts restricting access in other areas are to be avoided,

0.1 Land Ownership

There are 2,449,969 acres in the 143 minor civil divisions of Maine's
coastal area (excluding most coastal submerged lands). Of this,
about 2,348,000 acres (95.9%) are privately owned. The balance,
about 101,900 acres, is open space land maintained in a natural
condition by public agencies or private conservation organizations.
Figure 1 illustrates land ownership in the co'astal area.

In Maine, unlike many states, the vast majority of coastal land
is privately owned. More than 60 percent of the shoreline of
California, and 90 percent of the coast in Oregon is in the public
domain. Even in New England as a whole the proportion of public
shorefrontage is higher than in Maine - about eight percent,

The small percentage of public coastal land in Maine is largely the
result of the statets settlement heritage and its geography, Colonial
settlement, for instance, was encouraged by the granting of vast
tracts to private landowners, At the same time, the irregularity of
the coast requires the setting aside only of pockets of seaside land.
By contrast, on much of the Pacific coast one can see for miles from
the high, open bluffs fringing the sea, This offers excellent,

sweeping panoramas, but also dictates the setting aside of large
areas to protect scenic vistas. The irregularity of the Maine
coast and our history of private seaside ownership present both
opportunities and constraints for public use and resource pro--
tection.

PRIVATE CONSERVATION 0.3%
MUNICIPAL 0.7%
STATE 1.0%

FEDERAL 2.1%

Figure I
PRIVATE 95.9% LAND OWNERSHIP IN
2,348,o68 Acres MAINE'S COASTAL AREA

Doe:; not ine !ule ac@ .%, federal military inS'@nll-tti:?ns and
t r -e r-.-i c eAdmini st r -it i -n hol 1 1 n;;3
ligh st t, '-ns, , enerra s
M a in eDeLar-.-@ent of Transp,rtati@n rroDer t i stered
es , unreg@
State ownel islanis, ani some muriic'.-ai beacnes.

0.2 Requirements of the Coastal-Zone Managem.ent..Ac,t

Amendments to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, passed in
1976, require that states develop a planning process to identify
.public-shorefront areas appropriate for access or protection. In
Maine, it is clear that such a process is evolving. However, it
is difficult to limit the process to public areas alone, Most
public coastal sites in Maine were acquired for resource protection
or ocean access in the first place. The areas most in need of access
or protection planning are those portions of the coast now outside
the public domain. Accordingly, this discussion will necessarily deal
with both public and private coastal areas.

0.3 PuEgose of the Paper

The purpose of this discussion is to outline a planning process that
can identify public and private shorefront areas in Maine appropri-
ate for access or protection.

Five considerations consistent with Federal CZM regulations are
expressly dealt with:

1. Outline the current procedure for assessing (1.1) areas requir-
ing access or (1.2) protection.

2. Define the term "beach" and identify areas meeting that de-
finition.

3. Articulate enforceable state policies pertaining to shorefront
access and protection.

4. Demonstrate the current method for designating shorefront areas
as areas of particular concern or areas for conservation or
restoration.

5. Identify legal authorities and funding programs that can be
used to satisfy access or protection needs.

PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING AREAS REQUIRING ACCESS OR PROTECTION

1. PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING AREAS REQUIRING ACCESS OR PROTECTION

The purpose of assessing areas requiring additional access or pro-
tection planning is to express more than local concern with respect
to additional access or protection needs for beaches and other
oastal areas of environmental, recreational, historic, esthetic,
ecological or cultural value. Because the needs and means for access
c

improvement and site protection are in many cases quite different,
assessment of each is treated here separately.

1.1 Assessing Access Needs

The procedure for assessing coastal physical access needs in Maine
is a six-fold approach based on the following activities and studies:

1.11 Public Facilities For Boats Program

1.12 Inventories of Public Coastal Areas

1.13 Analysis of State Park Use

1.14 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

1.15 Surveys and Studies

1.16 Litigation

Although physical access is emphasized here, visual access to the
shore and the ocean is also very important. Visual access is dis-
cussed separately below (1-17).

1.11 Public Facilities For Boats Program - One approach to the
assessment and provision of actual access to the coast is offered
in the State's Public Facilities for Boats Program. Administered
by the Bureau of Parks and Recreation, a Public Facilities For Boats
Plan was prepared by the Bureau (January, 1976) to guide the pro-
vision of access sites. Funding for the Program comes from the
Boating Facilities Fund. Money from this Fund is to be used among
other things, to "acquire, construct and maintain, within the funds
available, public facilities for boats in the waters of the State,
including but not limited to launching ramps, parking sites and
access roads."

1.12 Inventories of Public Coastal Areas - The second aspect of an
assessment and documentation of access needs is an inventory of
publicly owned properties in the coastal area. Undertaken cooper-
atively by the State Planning Office and the Bureau of Parks and
Recreation, the inventory covers publicly owned coastal area parcels,
not including submerged lands. Public lands throughout Maine's
coastal area are being included, not just those contiguous to the
water, to help assess the possibility of banking land.

Complementing this is an inventory of public accessways to the water,
including those on public beaches, being undertaken by the State
Planning Office (unpublished). Local officials and knowledgeable
citizens have been contacted for this information. All claimed
public accessways identified in this manner are being mapped and
described on inventory forms. By identifying the parcels of land
in which the public holds proprietory rights, it can be insured
that existing public land is not lost by adverse possession or
other procedures, or so encumbered by adjacent development as to
destroy the existing access or use potential.

The successive step in needs assessment is the selection of s-"-tes
which have high potential for public access. This has been done
in part in a report, The Maine Coast: Recreation and Open Spice,
prepared for the Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation.
The report identifies coastal sites suitable for resource protection
or outdoor recreation. The Waterways Division of the Bureau of
Parks and Recreation also selects sites suitable for recreational
boat access as mentioned above.

Once potential sites have been selected, onsite assessments can
be conducted to.determine the relative suitability of each for
public access use. This field inventory should consist of two
major parts: (1) a physical characteristic/ownership component,
and (2) an assessment of environmental impacts.

The product of the foregoing will be a definition of what the
State intends to.do, where it intends to do it, and how it pro-
poses to do it. This process has been initiated. Prior to adoption
or other action extensive public discussion will be required.

1.13 Analysis of Park Use - The third aspect of an assessment of
access needs is analyses of public use of supervised state parks
and memorials. Histograms were prepared by the Bureau of Parks
and Recreation as part of its State Park System Plan (in preparation)
to show public use patterns. Each graph was prepared by determining
the average number of people using an area each day during the
operating seasons of 1974, 1975 and 1976. Areas of the same use-
type were grouped and this information was plotted for the 101 day
period between Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day. The shapes of
the resultant graphs indicate how visitation is distributed in time.
Figure 2 is the graph for Popham Beach, Peacock Beach and Reid State
Parks, three swimming-picnicking parks in the coastal area.

An indication of the extent to which the public is utilizing E@XiSt-
ing recreational capacities can be gained by examining the figures.
(In this respect, the reader is cautioned that the graphs represent,
for the most part, groups of facilities of the same use-type. Thus,
individual facilities may exhibit use patterns which differ from
those illustrated.) All graphs were prepared in the same scale
making it possible to compare directly the volume of use. Instant
Design Capacities on each graph refer to the total number of people
who can be accommodated at the areas at any given moment.

Figure 2

ISM

51509

INsTANT DESIGN CAPACITY
5,171
5AT

L4
4,51) A"
LL-

4, n-

3,9)0

3,9))

2,57)

1,57) L

J
57)

5s ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss 53 ss S3 ss 58
may June July August ssept
SWIMMINGRICNICKING (PEACOCK BEACH, POPHAM BEACH AND REm STATE PARKS)

1.14 SCORP - The fourth aspect of assessing access needs is the
analysis of facility and land deficiencies for recreation activities
in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (1977).
Detailed analyses of a number of coastal related activities were pre-
pared for the four coastal planning districts in Maine. Table 1 is
a summary of calculated land deficiencies in the coastal planning
districts.

The Maine SCORP also identified the need for "a study of the nE!eds
for additional State Park areas with visual or foot access to the
Maine coastal shoreline." l/

1.15 Surveys and Studies - The fifth aspect of access needs assess-
ment is a series of Maine resident preference surveys. A 1975 sur-
vey conducted for the SPO found that 53% of the coastal area rE@-
spondents favored increasing publicly accessible coastline in Maine.
These figures are consistent with an earlier survey which found that
55% of those interviewed across the state reported they would like
to see the State spend more money to acquire coastal beaches and
scenic areas, were the funds available. 3/ In a 1977 survey, 42.6% of
those surveyed in the coastal area said that, public coastal land was
less than adequate. 4/

In addition to the statewide and coastal surveys citied, there have
been in recent years a number of local and regional studies and
surveys which have reported the problems of access needs along the
Maine coast. At a recent meeting of the Land and Water Resources
Planning Committee of the Hancock County Planning Commission, the
"lack of access to the shoreline by fishermen due to increasing
sales of shore property for residential use" was identified as a
serious problem. 5/

l/ Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Maine Statewide CompE_e-
hensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Augusta, 1977) P. 11-18.

2/ Maine State Planning Office, Citizen Evaluation of Public
Policy in the Coastal Zone (Augusta, 1975), prepared by the
Social Science Research Institute, Univ. of Maine, p. 85.

3/ Maine State Planning Office, An Appraisal by the People
(Augusta, 1973), prepared by Northeast Markets, Inc., p.30.

4/ Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Maine Resident Outdoor
Recreation Participation and Preferences - A Look of the Coast
T-Augusta, 1977), prepared by Northeast Markets, Inc.

5/ Meeting of the Land and Water Resources Planning Committee,
Hancock County Planning Commission, February 15, 1978.

Table 1
DISTRICT SUMMARY OF LAND DEFICIENCIES IN MAINE*

Planning District
Ac@71_V_ity Southern Cumberland Mid-Coast Eastern
1976 1980 1990 1976 1980 1990 1976 1980 1990 1976 1980 1990

Swimming x x x x x x x

Camping x

Picnicking x x x x x x x x

Boating x x x x x x x x x

Canoeing x x x

Interpretive x x x x x x x x x
Trails

Hiking x x x x x x x x x x

Horseback x x x
Riding

Ski Touring x x x x x x x x x

Bicycling x x x x x x x
XT x

*An X indicates adeficiency.
Source: 1977 Maine Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

Other studies have cited the need for public access in Maine as,
well. A 1975 Assessment of Water and Related Land Resources in
New England listed access to recreation areas as lacking in three
of seven coastal water basins in Maine. l/ A 1973 Open Space Plan
for the Bath-Brunswick region specified sites for the acquisition
for boat launch and recreation areas. 2_/ RC&D Projects on the coast
have identified lack of access for area residents as among serious
problems. 3/

Related to these studies are the activities of towns in identifying
existing accessways. The communities of Brunswick, Belfast, and
Southwest Harbor for example, have conducted indepth investigations
to locate existing public rights of way to the water. Funded by a
grant from the Maine Coastal Program the town of Cumberland is
currently researching the public's legal rights to the shore in
several southern Maine communities.

To promote increased local activity of this sort, the Time and Tide
RC&D in midcoastal Maine has conducted workshops on locating o_-_d
public rights of way. A report is being issued to reach more towns
interested in this same type of project. 4/

1.16 Litigation - The final aspect of Maine's process of access
evaluation is an ongoing program of litigation. Currently several
law suits relating to various aspects of the access issues are
pending. 2/ As opportunities arise, legal issues will be raised
and the Maine Attorney General will intervene in the public's
interest where appropriate.

New England River Basins Commission, 1975 Assessment of Water
and Related Land Resources, New England Region Summary Report,
Severe Resource Problems and Recommendations for their
Resolution, (Boston, December, 1977) p. 143.

2/ Bath/Brunswick Regional Planning Commission, Open Space Plan,
prepared by Community Planning Services, 1973.

3/ Time and Tide RC&D, Program of Action, assisted by USDA, et al,
1974; Down East RC&D Council, Framework Plan, assisted by USDA,
et al, 1977.

4/ Maine Department of Marine Resources in cooperation with Time
and Tide RC&D, Public Access to Maine Shoreline: A Workshog
Discussion, DMR Fisheries Information Series #1, June, 1978.

5/ Suits are pending, e.g. in the communities of Brunswick and
Deer Isle.

1.17 Visual Access - Visual access, to the water is as important
to many users of the coast as is physical access. The Maine Depart-
ment of Transportation provides high-way rest areas in scenic coastal
locations. The Maine Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan also
recognizes the value of coastal scenery and supports the protection
of outstanding coastal areas coupled with the provision of visual
access to the shore. l/

In addition, of all the states, the most prevalent use of conser-
vation easements as a technique for shoreline preservation has been
in Maine. Conservation easements have been granted on approximately
9,000-10,000 acres of private lands in the coastal area to protect
shorelands and to preserve the visual attractiveness of the coast.

1/ Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Maine Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (August, 1977), p. 11-18.

1.2 Assessing Protection Needs

Presented here is a review of those activities undertaken or under-
way to assess needs for the protection of important coastal sites in
Maine. The development of a process for the protection of such
areas is also dealt with in other sections of Maine's coastal
Program concerned with Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
(Appendix C), Areas for Preservation or Restoration (Appendix D),
and Goals, Objectives and Policies (Section 6).

The procedure for assessing coastal protection needs in Maine is
a manifold approach involving the conservation of:

1.21 Critical Areas

1.22 Wildlands

1.23 Rivers

1.24 Wildlife Areas and Wetlands

1.25 Islands

1.26 Historic Sites

1.27 Beaches

A summary of thirteen principal statutes governing land and water
use and quality on the coast is presented at the end of this section
(1.28).

1.21 Critical Areas - The systematic identification, registration
and conservation of coastal critical areas is the first aspect of
protection needs assessment.

In 1974, an act establishing a State Register of Critical Areas
was enacted. Under this legislation, the State Planning Office has
the responsibility to develop a Critical Areas Program for the pur-
pose of identifying, documenting, and encouraging the conservation
of critical areas. An eleven member Critical Areas Advisory Board
was created to advise and assist the State Planning Office in this
endeavor. The Critical Area Program essentially refines an in-
ventory completed through the Natural Resources Council in 1972.
This initial project by the NRC established an interest in the iden-
tification and protection of natural areas.

According to the legislation, critical areas are officially recog-
nized (registered) areas which contain natural features of state
significance--either highly unusual natural features or outstand-
ing examples of more common features. Critical areas may include
exceptional plant or animal habitat, areas of great geological or
historical interest, and outstanding scenic areas. Examples in-
clude colonial bird nesting sites, naturally occurring rhododendran
stands, significant fossil deposits, and scenic gorges and waterfalls.

The Critical Areas Program consists of two phases: Registration
and conservation. The registration process consists of the iden-
tification of subjects for investigation, the preparation of plan-
ning reports on priority subjects, recommendations for registration
from the planning reports, a preliminary decision on the registration
with a 60 day review period for the landowner, and final registration
if appropriate. The conservation process is dependent upon the
cooperation of the landowners and may, with the owners consent,
involve management agreements and the sale or donation of property
rights. In this process, the State Planning Office attempts to
maintain a close relationship with the owners of critical areas.
Wide dissemination of information on critical areas is not encouraged
without the landowners consent.

As discussed in 2. below, the Critical Areas Program has undertaken
an inventory and detailed description of the sand beaches of the
Maine coast, This information goes a long way toward long term
protection of coastal beach systems.

1.22 Wildlands - The second aspect of protection needs assessment
deals with the "wildlands" of Maine's coastal area. The Maine Land
Use Regulation Commission (LURC) has a mandate to plan for and zone
all land use in the unorganized territory of Maine (often colloquially
called the "wildlands"), including six unorganized townships and
254 islands in the coastal area. To assist in the evaluation of the
attitudes of Maine residents toward wilderness conservation at least
three surveys have been undertaken.

Lessees In the Unorganized Townships of Maine, by the Maine Land
Use Regulation Commission, collected background information,
opinions and attitudes, and lease information from lessees of
land in the unorganized area. When asked what they liked partic-
ularly about the Maine woods, 80 percent indicated the quiet and
solitude, 64 percent the wilderness atmosphere, 66 percent the
fishing opportunities, 54 percent the hunting opportunities, 12
percent the vacation communities, and seven percent other. At the
very least, these responses indicated a desire to protect and main-
tain the natural environment characteristics of the unorganized area.

Maine, An Appraisal by the People, conducted for the State Planning
Office in 1973, also addressed the wilderness issue. The survey
found that the features of Maine that respondents liked the most
were its scenic beauty and its wide open, uncrowded feeling. The
same survey found that a majority of respondents statewide sup-
ported the maintenance of undeveloped wildlands.

An Analysis of the Attitudes of Residents Toward Land Use In Maine's
Unorganized Area undertaken for the Land Use Regulation Commission
in 1974, found that 88 percent of the Maine residents surveyed felt
that "certain wilderness areas, lakes and rivers should be set aside
for primarily primitive recreation like hiking and canoeing." Eighty-
three percent of the respondents favored State regulation of land
use in the unorganized areas of Maine.

A synopis of these studies indicates an underlying concern for the
protection of Maine's "wilderness" but at the same time a recogni-
tion of the need for industry and jobs. There seems to be a desire
to balance the two, to have some of both if at all possible.

One method of limiting development in the unorganized area is
through the planning and zoning responsibilities of the Maine Land
Use Regulation Commission. Existing areas are being identified by
the Commission and zoned as protection districts. These efforts
may also serve as an inventory of important recreation and natural
areas. From the inventory list, important areas could be selected
for possible acquisition by federal or State agencies.

The Land Use Regulation Commission has published a Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (September, 1976) for the plantations and unorganized
townships of the State. The Commission h.as also conducted and pub-
lished A Preliminary Study of the Coastal Islands in the Land Use
Regulation Commission's Jurisdiction (April, 1976). Both of these
documents go a long way toward outlining the State's interest in
conserving its coastal wildlands.

1.23 Rivers - Although Maine does not have a State wild and scenic
rivers program, there has been considerable activity recently re-
garding assessment of rivers deserving protection, including several
rivers in Maine's coastal basins.

Maine has passed special legislation for the zoning and protection
of the Saco River in southern Maine and it has the limited
river zoning and regulating protection afforded by the Land Use
Regulation Commission.

Maine has one designated wild and scenic river, the Allagash.
Though State administered, the Allagash is designated as a National
River under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Sev-
eral coastal rivers in Maine have been suggested as potential study
rivers under the Act. These include the Machias River, the St. Croix
River, the Kennebec River and the Sheepscot River. Recently the
National Park Service has been surveying rivers throughout the
country, utilizing general criteria, to preliminarily determine
which rivers might qualify for further in depth study as potential
national wild and scenic rivers. This survey effort has just been
completed for Maine and several rivers are expected to meet the
general criteria.

In addition, 25 coastal basin rivers in Maine have been recommended
for screening as potential wild, scenic and recreational rivers in
a report, The Maine Coast: Recreation and Open Space, prepared for
the Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation.

To assess the attitudes of residents toward wild and scenic rivers,
the subject was addressed in the 1973 survey, Maine, An Appr.isal
by the People, in the context of several recreation questions. On
a statewide basis, the protection of wild and scenic rivers was the
third most popular in a list of seven choices. The protecticn of
wild and scenic rivers was number one or number two priority in
several districts, including York County.

1.24 Wildlife Areas and Wetlands - The acquisition or protection
of wildlife areas and wetlands in Maine's coastal areas are largely
accomplished through the programs of the Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife and the Department of Marine Resources and
through the regulations of the Coastal Wetlands Alterations Act
and the Site Location Act, administered by the Department of En-
vironmental Protection, and the Stream Alteration Act administered
by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,

The long term acquisition objectives of the Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife include the acquisition of vulnerable salt
marsh areas and coastal eider and seabird nesting islands. To aid
in the assessment of which islands to acquire the Department has
been cooperating in a multiyear study of significant nesting islands
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Cooperative
Wildlife Unit. Exhaustive nesting inventories have been undertaken
and a selection procedure formulated to select habitat of highest
significance.

The zoning activities of the Land Use Regulation Commission in the
unorganized area of Maine is also a means of assessing the need for
protection of coastal wildlife areas and wetlands. LURC's
final comprehensive plan, approved in 1976, includes a Wetland
Protection Subdistrict, a Flood Prone Protection Subdistrict, and
a Fish and Wildlife Protection Subdistrict.

Finally, the mandatory shoreline zoning law for organized towns
in Maine offers some protection of smaller wildlife or wetland
areas at the local level. Each town is required to identify
fragile wetlands and important wildlife areas. Many of these areas
are put into resource protection districts or other zones of
restricted use.

1.25 Coastal Islands - Maine's coastal islands are unique to the
entire eastern coast of the United States in that few other states
have islands with such geological and biological diversity. Many
have argued that these islands are not only nationally significant
but of worldwide significance as well. As such, a strong case can
be made for the protection of a representative sample of Maine's
coastal islands from development.

A number of agencies and organizations in Maine are involved in
the assessment and protection of islands. One hundred-three
coastal island properties are owned by federal or state public
agencies or private conservation organizations in Maine. Several
others are held by local governments for recreation or resource
conservation. At the state level, the principal island conser-
vation activities are undertaken by the Department of Inland
Fisheries and wildlife, the Bureau of Public Lands, the Bureau
of Parks and Recreation, and the Land Use Regulation Commission.

The work of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the
Land Use Regulation Commission concerning island evaluation and
protection is described above (1.22 and 1.24).

The Coastal Island Registry, a program of the Maine Bureau of
Public Lands includes jurisdiction over approximately 1,300
islands which have not been registered with the State.

The Coastal Island Registry was created to clarify and establish
the State's interest in coastal islands and to develop and imple-
ment management policies for the use and protection of State :)wned
islands. In. accordance with MRSA Title 33, Chapter 25, the Registry
is authorized to identify, described and assign numbers to all ledges
and islands in Maine's coastal waters, to require registration of all
these islands, and to promulgate all rules and regulations necessary
to carry out its lawful purposes. As amended in 1975, the law fur-
ther requires the Registry to review all claims to coastal islands
and determine the validity of these claims through a systematic
search and analysis of islRnd titles.

The second phase of the Registry program, a review of island titles,
is underway. The Bureau of Public Lands must review each island
registration with a view toward disallowing registrations by or on
behalf of persons who are not true owners of the islands. This
involves the review and title search of up to 1,500 islands followed
by an administrative process and possibly judicial proceedings.

At the same time, the Bureau is developing A Management Plan for the
Unregistered Coastal Islands of Maine. The plan will allocate man-
agement responsibility for specific islands to public agencies which
have a clear interest in assuming such responsibilities. For example,
islands which are significant as bird nesting sites will be trans-
ferred to Fish and Wildlife. Islands which lend themselves to rec-
reational development will be transferred to Parks and Recreation.
The plan will suggest the most suitable use of each island based
largely on natural resource inventories already completed for the
islands. Many islands will be set aside for resource protection in
the public interest.

Other island protection efforts in Maine relate to island trusts
and conservation easements. The passage, in 1971, of an Act to
Provide for Coastal Island Trusts outlined a method by which
municipalities, the State, and the Federal government could work
together towards planning for and protecting significant island
groupings. The legislation resulted primarily from a federal
study of coastal islands. A major recommendation of that study
was the Casco Bay Islands be initially studied as a model island
grouping.

As of the end of 1976, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust had secured
conservation easements on 64 entire islands and 57portions of
islands. The recipient agencies for these easements include the
State Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the National Park Service,
the Nature Conservancy, the Department of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife, the Maine Audubon Society, and several municipalities'.
(See 1.17 and 5.2 for further discussion of conservation easements.)

1.26 Historic Sites - The recognition of sites of historic signi-
ficance is the sixth aspect of assessing protection needs in Maine.
At the State level, it is primarily the responsibility of the Maine
Historic Preservation Commission to screen and nominate areas on the
coast as candidates for the various national historic registers.
Twenty-three coastal sites in Maine are National Historic Landmarks.
Of the 328 Maine sites on the National Register of Historic Paces,
215 are located in coastal area communities. Twenty-five of the
32 sites in Maine on the National Register of Historic Districts
are in coastal towns.

The Historic Preservation Commission is also responsible for the
preparation and maintenance of the State Comprehensive Historic
Preservation Plan, and all of the state responsibilities as re-
quired under the National Historic Preservation Act.

Additionally, the Bureau of Parks and Recreation directly admin-
isters twenty-two historic sites and memorials in the coastal area.

1.27 Beaches - Maine's coastal beaches are one of the state's
most important social, ecological recreational assets. They also
represent a large part of the public's access to the sea. As such
they are treated separately below.

1.28 Statutes - Currently there are about 75 state laws, adminis-
tered by more than a dozen separate agencies, which pertain to
management of coastal resources in Maine. Many of these have
already been mentioned in this discussion. Table 2 is a summary
of thirteen principal state statutes governing land and water use
and quality along the coast.

Table 2

PRINCIPAL STATE STATUTES GOVERNING LAND AND WATER USE

ALONG THE MAINE COAST

STATUTE PURPOSE

Coastal Wetlands Act (38 M.R.S.A. 471-478) Directs the Board of Environmental
Protection to regulate uses that could
harm tidal and subtidal lands.

Coastal Island Trust Act (12 M.R.S.A. 641-646) Enables coastal island trusts adminis-
tered by coastal island commissions to
be set up to control and guide the de-
velopment of Maine's coastal islands.
Submerged Lands Act (12 M.R.S.A. 5i4-A) Reaffirmed the State's ownership of
submerged lands.

Coastal Conveyance of Petroleum Act (38 M.R.S.A. Established an oil spill prevention and
541-560) clean-up program financed by a fee on
oil brought into Maine ports.

Land Use Regulation Commission (12 M.R.S.A. Directs LURC to zone all land use in the
681-689) unorganized areas of the state, includ-
ing six unorganized townships and 116
islands in Maine's coastal area.

Mandatory Sharcland Zoning Act (12 1I.R.S.A. Requires municipalities to enact and
4811-4814) enforce zoning for shore areas within
250 feet of water.

Protection and Improvement of Waters Act
(38 M.R.S.A. 356) Mandates that the quality of all state
waters be protected from degredation.
State Plumbing Code (22 M.R.S.A. 42) Sets up minimum standards for subsurface
waste water disposal.

The Subdivision Law (30 M.R.S.A. 4956) Specifies that communities have to review
proposed subdivisions to see that they
meet minimum state criteria.

Site Location of Development Act (38 M.R.S.A. Controls large development projects
481-489) through a permit procedure.

Protection and Improvement of Air Law (38 M.R.S.A. Directs the Board of Environmental Pro-
Ch. 4) tection to regulate all air emissions to
protect public health, property, and
natural resources.

Solid Waste Management Act (38 M.R.S..A. Encourages programs that will red uce
Ch. 13) the volume of and assure the environ -
mentally sound disposal of solid waste,
and promote the reuse and recovery of
valuable resources.

Conservation of Marine Species Act (12 M.R.S.A. Gives the Department of Marine Resources
3504) broad regulatory powers to manage
almost all phases of marine fisheries.

DEFINITION AND IDENTITY OF BEACHES 2

2. DEFINITION AND IDENTITY OF BEACHES

2.1 Confusion of Terms

Beaches can be defined in a variety of ways. The Maine courts have
had a difficult time defining the beach and the shore. The study,
Maine Lav Affecting Marine Resources, included the following de-
finitions from shorefront cases:

What is the sea shore must first be defined. The sea shore must
be und-erstood to be the margin of the sea in its usual and or-
dinary state, Thug, when the tide Is out, the low water mark
is the margin of the sea, and when the sea is full, the margin
is high water mark, The sea shore is therefore all ground be-
tween high water mark and low water mark (Storer v, Freeman,
6 Mass 435, p. 439; Laysesk v. Bangor Bank., 8 Me. 85 Pg. 90
(1831).

By beach, it is to be understood the shore or strand;
and it has been decided, that the seashore is the space be-
tween high and low water mark (Coltis v,__Russey 15 Me, 237, 241
(1839).

The word beach, must be deemed to designate land washed
by the sea and its wavesi and to be synonymous with shore
(Littlefield v. Littlefield, 28 Me. 18o, 181 (1848).

The @shoret is the ground between ordinary high and low water
mark, the flats, and a well defined monument (Montgomery v.
Reed,69 Me. 510, 514 (1879); Morrison v. 3ank-,88 Me. 155,
160, 33 A. 782 (l 895).

The word [shore] strictly means that space which is alternately
covered and exposed by the flow and ebb low water mark (Morrison
supra).

The term intertidal zone also refers to the area between high and low
water, the area over which the ordinary tides flow daily.

2.2 Ownership

Federal regulations state that the purpose of defining the term
"beach" is to aid in the identification of those public beach areas
requiring further access and/or protection. In states where most
of the shoreline is beach frontage and public ownership extends
only to high tide or the line of vegetation, planning for improved
access to and protection of public beach areas is a relatively easy
task. In Maine the situation is quite different.

In Maine, except in a very few cases, private ownership extends to
low tide or 100 rods (503 meters) from high tide whichever is less.
However, many beaches in this state, while technically privately
owned, have for years been used as public common lands. In several
instances coastal communities have budgeted funds for private beach
maintenance (e.g. Scarborough, Wells, York, Saco), In one or two

towns recent research has suggested that beaches heretofore thought
to be private may actually be publicly owned (e..g. Kittery).

Hence, there are no definitive figures on beach ownership for the
entire Maine coast. The Army Corps of Engineers in its National
Shoreline Study, issued in 1971, estimated that only one-half
of one percent of the Maine coast was in public recreational
use though 3.2% was in local, state or federal public ownership!/
(not all of which is available for public use). A report on
Coastal Conservation Priorities,prepared for the State Planning
Office in 1973,estimated total coastal federal ownership to be
1.2%, state ownership 10%, and local ownership 0.5% of the shore-
line of the Maine coast2

Total linear (mean high tide) sand beach ownership has been esti-
mated as follows:

Table 3

Jurisdiction Miles (Km) _% of Coast % of Beach

Federal Beaches 0.2 (.0-3) 0.3
State Beaches 6.3 (10.1) 0.2 8,5
Local Beaches 9.2 (14.9) 0.3 12.6
Private Beaches 58.2 (@93-7) 1.7 78.6

TOTAL** 73.9 (119.2) 2,1 10010

*Less than 0.01%
**Columns are not necessarily additive due to rounding

Clearly, public beaches, as defined, comprise a small percentage of
the total coastal frontage.
Regardless of the statistics, ownership does not tell the entire
story. Some private beaches along the Maine coast are used as if
they were public and some publicly owned beaches remain unavailable
because they are inaccessible or undeveloped.

To add to this confusion the public has certain rights along
specific parts of the beach irrespective of ownership (except; per-
haps on federal military lands). Anyone can, for example, moor or
rest a boat on tidal flats, sail over the flats, cross the flats
to go to or from one's boat, take on or discharge passengers or
cargo, fish, dig clams and worms, and hunt for wildfowl below the
high water mark.

l/ U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Shoreline Study,
North Atlantic Region (NY, I.gTl-),P. 103.
2/ Reed and D'Andrea, Coastal Conservation Priorities Plan
(South Gardiner, Maine, 1973), P. 17--

These rights are stated in the Colony Ordinance of 1641 as amend-
ed in 1647 which it is generally assumed, forms the basis for
public shore rights in Maine, The Colony Ordinance was enacted
in Massachusetts and Maine was previously a territory of that
Commonwealth. Notably absent from the list of permitted uses of
the intertidal area is mention of recreational activities. Judicial
interpretation of the application of the Colony Ordinance in
Maine suggests that recreational bathing may be a permitted shore
use, although the point has never been clearly tested. In any case,
it is certain that the right of trespass across private lands to the
seashore as applies to Great Ponds is not in force. The inability
to get to the intertidal zone across private property from inland
points makes public recreational rights for most people a moot ad-
vantage.

2.3 Definitions

Beaches can be defined in geologic terms as coastal accumulations
of unconsolidated materials (sand beaches of particles �0.625mm -
2mm in diameter; cobble beaches of particles t2mm - 256mm in
diameter) around the limit of wave action.
Beaches can also be described in terms of their physiographic. parts
(Figure 3), Seaward of the mean low tide line are the offshore
zones of the sea; the land under the sea is the seabed or submerged
marine lands. The area between mean low tide and mean high tide
lines, which is subject to the normal flow of the tides, is the
wet sand. "Foreshore", "intertidal zone", and "tideland" are used
synonymously with this term. The area between the mean high tide
line and the line of vegetation, the storm ridge scarp, or an
artificial structure parallel to the water line, such as a seawall,
is the dry sand or backshore, The wet sand and dry sand together
comprise the beachface. The area landward of the vegetation line,
the storm ridge scarp, or a seawall or similar structure is the
upland.

2.11 Access Planning - For purposes of access planning, beaches are
defined as all local and state sand beachface areas on the coast
as well as the tidelands where the public has the rights specified
in the Colony Ordinance of 1641-47 -nd the submerged marine lands
held in trust by the sovereign State of Maine for the public. This
definition encompasses both public sand beaches, which are among the
Statets most important recreational resources, and shorelands be-
low mean high tide where the public has an interest in commercial
as well as recreational pursuits.

In identifying access needs the following is being analyzed: (a) the
supply of existing public facilities and areas, (b) the anticipated
pressures for future use of these areas, and (c) the capability and
suitE,bility of existing areas to support increased access.

STORM
RIDGE
SCARP

- OFFSHORE 13EACHFACE b - UPLAND

-WET SAND --DRY SAND

NIHWL

MLWL

Figure 3 Shoreline Terminology

so to me @w M " so, "1 00, Aw ;&* " on, I"

The body of literature available for use in determining access
needs includes the following:

Creteau, Paul G. Principles of Real Estate Law,
Portland: Castle Publishing Co., 1977.
Ducsik, Dennis. Shoreline for the Public. Cambridg e,
The MIT Press, 1974.

Henry, H.P. Coastal Zone Mgt. in Maine: A Legal Perspective.
Prepared for the Maine SPO, 1973.

Maine Association of Conservation Commissions, "Boat Access
Site Needs Survey Results." Kennebunkport, 1977.

Maine Audubon Society. "Areas of Concern Questionnaire
Results." Falmouth, 1977.

Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Maine Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan. Augusta, 1977.

Maine Resident Outdoor Recreation Participation
and Prefere-nces Survey - A Look at the Coast. Augusta, 1977.

1975 Visitor Use Survey: Day Use State Parks &
Coastal Municipal Beaches from Portland to kittery.
Augusta, 1975.

Maine Department of Transportation. File information on
ItHighway layouts." Right of Way Division, Augusta.

Maine State Planning Office, File information on public access
ways to water. Augusta, 1976,

Nev England River Basins Commission: Summary Report: Severe
Resource Problems and Recommendations for their Resolution.
Boston, 1977.

Northeast Markets, Inc. Maine,--An ApDraisal By the People,
Prepared for the Maine State Planning Office, 1973.

Parks, Richard B. "Public and Private Rights to Maine Tidal
Waters," in Maine Fish and Game (Summer, 1967),

Social Science Research Institute. Citizen Evaluation of
Public Policy in the Coastal Zone. Prepared for the Maine
State Planning Office, 1975,

Waite, G. Graham, "Public Rights in Maine Waters," in
Maine Law Review, 17. 1965.

In addition, there are a number of local and regional reports, pre-
pared over the past ten years, which have identified access needs
in particular coastal areas.

Ongoing programs concerning beach access planning are described
above (1.1).

2.32 Protection Planning - For purposes of protection planning?
beaches are defined as those state and local sand beachface and
dune sites identified (1) by the Maine Critical Areas Program as
significant geological and/or botanical ecosystems and (2) by the
Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation as significant recreational
beach systems. This definition includes those public sand beaches-
which are among the State's most important natural and recreational
resources.

It is anticipated that nonsand beaches, including those in the
public domain, will be inventoried and studied by the Critical
Areas Program. All beach systems, sand and nonsand, which meet the
following criteria could be considered areas of particular concern:

(1) areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural
habitat, unique or fragile, physical, figuration, historical
significance, cultural value or scenic importance;

(2) areas of substantial recreational value and/or opportunity;

(3) areas of significant hazard if developed due to storms,
floods, erosion and salt water intrusion; or

(4) areas needed to protect, maintain or replenish,coastal lands
or resources.

The Maine Critical Areas Program has identified 44 principal coastal
beaches with a cumulative length of 60 km. From this list, 29
beaches were selected for field checking based on the geological and
botanical criteria outlined. in Attachment A, To date, two dozen
coastal beach sites have been placed on the State Registry of Critical
Areas.

The Critical Areas Program list of beaches does not include many of
the states major recreational beaches, However, these are precisely
the beaches which most need protection to preserve their recreational
values. Thirty-four sand beaches have been identified as of state
level recreational significance in a report prepared for the Bureau
of Parks and Recreation. These were selected due to their size,
sand texture, history of use or geographic location. The majority
of these beaches are located southwest of Casco Bay.

A number of the beach area's identified for the Critical Areas Program
and the Bureau of Parks and Recreation are publicly owned, These
beach areas can be managed for resource conservation under Shore-
land Zoning, the statutes of the Land 'Use Regulation Commission, the
Submerged Lands Law and the Coastal Wetlands Act.

The administration of each of these laws is described in Section 7
of Maine's Coastal Program, That these laws are being enforced to
protect the public rights in Maine's coastal beaches is evidenced
by the denial of an application to construct a seawall on Popham
Beach. The projectwas denied, in part, because it was found that
it would "unreasonably interfere with existing recreational and navi-
gational uses in that the wall will restrict the use of the beach
by the public" and "may contribute to erosion of adjacent properties."
There is a growing body of literature on beach protection in Maine,
including public beaches. In determining the needs for protection
of public coastal beaches, consideration is being given to such
factors as (a) environmental, esthetic or ecological conservation
(including protection from overuse and mitigation of erosion
losses!/), and (b) protection for public use benefits (including
recreational or historic us.es). These factors have been considered
in the preparation of the draft document Maine's Coastal Beaches:
Recreation and Conservation, prepared for the Bureau of Parks and
Recreation.

Among the sources available for guidance in the protection of
Mainets coastal beaches are the following:

Maine Audubon Society. Seawall Policy. Approved April 5, 1978

Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation. 1975 Coastal Beach
Analyses-Kittery to Portland. Unpublished, Augusta,- May, 1975.

Maine Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,
Augusta, March, 1977.

1975 Visitor Use Survey: Day Use State Parks
and Coastal Municipal Beaches from Portland to Kittery.
Augusta, September, 1975.

. "Southern Coastal Research-Initial Report".
Unpublished memorandum by B.L. Walker, Augusta@ April 15, 1975.

Maine Resident Outdoor Recreation Participation
and Preferences Survey.

Natural Resources Council of Maine. Resolution Re: The Need
for a Comprehensive State Policy Regarding Prote-ct-io-n of the
State's Sand Beaches, Approved March 10, 1978,

l/ See also the element of Maine's Coastal Program dealiag with
erosion/mitigati6n planning.

Nelson, B.W. and L.K. Fink, Jr. Geological and Botanical
Features of Sand Beach SZstems in Maine. Prepared for the
Maine Critical Areas Program, 1978.

St. Pierre, James A. Maine's Coastal Beaches: Recreation and
Conservation. Prepared for the Maine Bureau of Parks and Re-
creation, 1978.

Timson, Barry and Donald Kale, Maine Shoreline Erosion In.-
ventory. Unpublished. Prepared for the Maine State Planning
Office, 1977.

Trudeau, Philip, Paul J. Godfrey and Barry S. Timson. Beach
Vegetati2n and Oceanic Processes Study of Popham State Park
Beach, Reid State Park Beach, and Small Point Beach. Unpub-
lished. Maine Department of Conservation and Soil Conservation
Service. September, 1977.

Maine Board of Environmental Protection, Policy on New Seawalls,
Adopted May,i1978.

Ongoing programs relati ng to beach protection planning are des-
cribed above (1.2).

ACESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING POLICIES AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES

3. ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING POLICIES AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES

3.1 Access Policies and Legal Authorities

As discussed in section 2.2, all coastal planning in Maine must
progress within the unusual framework of the Colony Ordinance of
1:641-47, which authorized private land ownership in the intertidal
zone, subject to certain public rights:

It is declared, that in all creeks, coves, and
other places about and upon salt water, where
the sea ebbs and flows, the proprietor, or the
land adjoining, shall have propriety to the low
water mark, where the sea doth not ebb above a
hundred rods, and not more wheresoever it ebbs
further.

Provided, that such proprietor shall not by
this liberty have power to stop or hinder the
passage of boats or other vessels, in or
through any sea, creeks or coves, to other
ments houses or lands.1

While private ownership of the intertidal lands limits the publicts
opportunities along the seashore, the Colony Ordinance also speci-
fied the public's rights in the area between high and low tide.

Every inhabitant who is an householder shall
have free fishing and fowling in any great
ponds, bays, coves and rivers, so far as the
sea ebbs and flows within the precincts of the
town where they dwell, unless the freemen of the
same town, or the general court, have otherwise
appropriated them.2

Original authority, then, to provide public access to the shore
is rooted in this mid seventeenth century statute. For without
the ability to get to the intertidal zone across private property$
it is difficult, and in many cases impossible, to exercise those
rights explicitly reserved for the public.

Besides the Colony Ordinance, a number of policies pertaining to
the improvement of physical and visual shorefront access in Maine
have been articulated in recent State statutes and other documents.
These policies, with legal authorities, are listed in Table 4.

1 From the 1814 Edition of Ancient Charters and Laws of the
Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, p. 148.
2 Ibid.

Table 4

STATE POLICIES AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES PERTAINING
TO SHOREFRONT ACCESS

Purpose Authority

Require permits for activities on or over *Coastal Wetlands Act,
tidal or subtidal lands to insure no 38 M.R.S.A. E471-478
unreasonable interference with re-
creational and other uses.

Subject shoreland areas to zoning and sub- *Shoreland Zoning,
division controls in order to conserve 12 M.R.S.A. �4811-4814
cover, visual as well as actual points of
access to inland and coastal waters and
natural beauty.

Assure that activities do not unreason- *Stream Alteration Act.,
ably interfere with navigational or 12 M.R.S.A. �2206-221.2
recreational uses of rivers above head
of tide.

Acquire in behalf of the State, land or *Bureau of Parks and
any interest therein within the Statewith Recreation, 12 M.R.S.A.
or without improvements, by purchase or �203
gift, and by eminent domain.

Acquire, construct and maintain public Bureau of Parks and Re-
facilities for boats to improve public creation, Public Facili-
access to the public waters of the State. ties for Boats Program,
38 M.R.S.A. �321-329

Identify methods and procedures to assure Department of Environ-
public access to navigable waters for mental Protection responsi-
recreation purposes. bilities un der Federal
Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1977,
Section 208(b)(2)(A)

Permits will not normally be approved for Policy of the Board of
new seawalls or similar obstrULtiORS Environmental Protection
inasmuch as they interfere with re-
creational and navigable uses of tlLe inter-
tidal zone.

Acquire, construct, operateo and maintain Department of Transporta-
such harbor facilities as may be necessary tion, 23 M.R.S.A. �4206
to implement the planned development of
coastal resources, ports and harbors.

Enhance and protect the natural scenic *Maine Traveler Infor-
beauty of the State by controlling the mation Services, 23 M.R.S.A.
indiscriminate use of outdoor advertising. �1901-1925

Assure that the subdivision of land is *Subdivision law, 30
conducted in such a way that air and water M.R.S.A. �4956
quality standards are maintained and
scenic values and areas of natural beauty
are conserved.

Retain land or water areas in their *Conservation Restrictions,
natural, scenic, open or wooded con- 33 M.R.S.A. �667-668
ditions (to preserve visual acceSB).

Protect outstanding coastal areas and Bureau of Parks and
provide adequate visual or foot access Recreation, S.C.O.R.P.
to coastal'shoreline.

*Enforceable policies.

Those that refer to enforceable laws which provide solhe control over
the restriction of the publicls rights in shore areas are distin-
gui,sh,ed by an asterisk. The most important laws pertaining to
the protection of physical access are the Coastal Wetlands Alteration
Act and the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning and Subdivision Control Act.
3.11 Coastal Wetlands Act - A history and description of uses and
areas regulated by the Coastal Wetlands Act are included in Section
7.3 of Maine's Coastal Program. Briefly, the purpose of the law
is to assure that dredging, draining, filling, or construction of
permanent structures on or over any tidal or subtidal land, is
conducted such that it doez not unteazonabty intetJe&e with existing
navigationat o& &ecteationat uzez, cause unreasonable soil erosion,
unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of any waters, un-
reasonably harm wildlife or freshwater, estuarine, or marine
fisheries, or lower the quality of any waters. The law requires
that any person proposing such activity first obtain a permit.
Permits for alterations may be issued by the Board of Environmental
Protection (BEP) (provided the alterations are consistent with the
standards in the Act) or by a municipality, provided the municipality
has a) established a planning board, b) adopted a Shoreland Zoning
ordinance approved by the BEP and by the Land Use Regulation Com-
mission, and c) has made provision by ordinance or regulation for
prompt notice to the BEP and the public upon receipt of the application
and for written notification to the applicant and the BEP of the
issuance or denial of a permit. The BEP may, after a public hearing,
revoke the municipality's permit granting authority.
Persons proposing to permanently alter an intertidal or sub 'tidal area
must fill out the permit application form supplied by the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) or by the municipality, if that
municipality has permit granting authority. Applicants must indicate
the location of the proposed project on the appropriate U.S.G.S. topo-
graphic map, and submit it with both a sketch of the project and a
scale drawing of the coastal wetland to be affected (showing the
project in detail, the landowner's property boundary lines, and
low and high water marks), The applicant must describe; a) the
present use of the wetland, b) the project, and c) the measures
which will be taken to protect the surrounding area from any ad-
verse effects of the project.

When the application is received by the DEP, it is checked for
completeness and then assigned a permanent identification number.
A visit to the site is made by at least a Department of Marine Re-
sources staff member, and perhaps representatives of the Department
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or the Soil Conservation Service.
A summary of the information is then sent to the following Review
Agencies, with a request for their comments within two weeks: the
municipality, the Department of Marine Resources, the Regional Planning
Commission, the Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the De-
partment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. After the review comments
are received, the application is acted on by either the Department of

Environmental Protection staff or by the Board of Environmental
Protection.

The DEP staff act on the following types of applications: a) pile
structures entirely above mean low water, b) repairs and/or main-
tenance necessary to preserve or restore an existing structure or
land contour or one which has existed on the applicant's property
within one year prior to the date of application, if the proposed
project will not result in any harm to the natural environment,
c) erosion preventive measures, d) trenching operations where
there will be immediate restoration, e) marine railways or ramps
where no significant dredging or filling is involved. The staff
order is then written either approving, denying, or approving with
conditions, and the order is mailed to the applicant.

If the BEP action is required, a working document with recommendations
is prepared by the DEP staff and mailed to the BEP members one week
prior to the next scheduled Board meeting for its consideration and
deliberation. At the meeting, a decision is made on the application
to either approve, approve with conditions, deny, or set a date for
a public hearing on the application. Within 30 days after receipt
of an application, the BEP or the municipality must either issue or
deny the permit, or order that a public hearing be held within 30
days of the order, If a public hearing is held, the permit must be
issued or denied within 30 days after adjournment of the hearing,
An applicant may request a public hearing.

Before issuing a permit, the BEP must notify the municipality wherein
the planned activity is proposed and consider any comments received
from the municipality within a "reasonable period" (usually two weeks).
A permit issued by the BEP is effective on the date of approval, while
a permit issued by a municipality does not become effective until 30
days after issuance, Immediately after issuance of a permit 'by a
municipality, a copy of the application for the permit and the permit
issued must be sent to the BEP. The BEP may then review the permit
and either approve, deny, or modify it. Failure of the BEP to act
within 30 days of receipt of the permit from the municipality con-
stitutes effective approval of the permit.

If a permit is denied, the applicant may request a hearing by the
Board or municipality. An average of perhaps half a dozen appli-
cations are appealed annually, and perhaps one of those may be
reversed. Within 10 days of the applicant's receipt of the final
Board decision, anyone who is aggrieved by the decision may petition
the BEP for an opportunity to present new or additional evidence which
may result in reconsideration of the conditions of approval or denial.
The BEP may, within 30 days of receipt of such petition and after ap-
propriate notice, grant the petition in full or in part, order a
public hearing, or dismiss the petition. Municipalities which handle
an application may handle appeals in the same manner as does the BEP.

Anyone aggrieved by any order or decision of the Board or municipality
in regard to any matter upon which there was.a hearing before the
Board or municipality and of which a transcript is available, may
within 30 days after notice of the filing of such order or decision,
appeal to the Superior Court. The court's review is limited to

questions of law and to whether the Board or municipality acted
regularly and within the scope of its authority. The decision of the
Board or municipality is final so long as supported by substantial
evidence, The court may affirm, reverse, or remand the decison of
the Board or munciipal@ty for further proceedings.
Any filling, dredging, depositing, altering, or erecting of permanent
structures which takes place on tidal or subtidal land without a per-
mit or contrary to the provisions of a permit is a violation of the
law and is subject to a fine of not more than $500 for day of vio-
lation, regardless of whether or not the violation was unintentional.
n the event of a violation, the Attorney General may institute pro@
ceedings to prevent further violation and to compel restoration of
the affected area to its prior condition. Enforcement of the regu-
lations in the law can be carried out by all law enforcement officers,
but is primarily done by the Department of Marine Resources (DMR)
coastal wardens, and to a lesser extent by Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife wardens, under a formal cooperative agreement
with the DEP.

To date, in at least one case a wetlands alteration permit to repair
a seawall on a sand beach has been denied. The BEP rejected the
application becauseo among other things, "the pAoject WiZZ unteason-
abZy.intet6ete with exizting @Lecteationat and navigationaZ uzez in
that the waZZ witt AeStkict the u.6e o6 the beach by the pubtic."

Recent ly the Board of Environmental Protection has approved a policy
that'hereafter it will normally be unable to make the necessary favor-
able findings of fact set forth in the Coastal Wetlands Law when an
application is made for new seawalls on sand beaches. By emphasizing
the burden of proof on applicants, the Board has clearly recognized
that seawalls can be "physical obstructions in the intertidal zone
which obstruct public rights in that zone."

3.12 Shoreland Zoning Act - A detailed history and description of
uses and areas regulate@_by the Shoreland Zoning Act are to'be found
in Section 7.4 of Maine's Coastal Program.

Section 4811 of the statute specifies that one purpose of the act is
to llconsetve shore cover, vizuaZ a.6 weZZ az actuaZ point,5 oJ acces.6
to inland and coaztaZ wate)LZ and natural beauty."
The Act states: "Cities and towns pursuant to presently existing
enabling legislation are authorized to plan, zone, and control the
subdivision of land." Section 4813 gives the Department of En-
vironmental Protection (DEP) and the Land Use Regulation Com-
mission (LURC), power to adopt suitable ordinances, following
consultation with the State Planning Office (SPO) for those muni-
cipalities that fail to meet the requirements of the Act, and re-
quires the municipalities to administer and enforce the State
imposed ordinance.

The role of the DEP, LURC, and SPO is that of ensuring that the
objectives of the law are met. The State Planning Office is re-
sponsible for coordinating the efforts of the Board of Environmental
Protection and the Land Use Regulation Commission and ensuring that
municipalities and all state agencies mutually cooperate to accom-
plish the purposes of the Act.

The Act requires towns to submit their shoreland ordinances to the
State Planning Office for review for conformance with the laws.
In practice, this administrative procedure has worked well, and
despite inadequate funding, the State Planning Office (with
assistance from the Regional Planning Commissions) has helped the
coastal towns achieve reasonable shoreland ordinances. Nonethe-
less, there is still more to be done as many ordinances should be
strengthened and refined.

The Act makes provision for ensuring that mu nicipalities enforce
their ordinances:

If a municipality fails to administer and en-
force zoning ordinances adopted by it or the
State, pursuant to the requirements of this
chapter, the Attorney General shall seek an
order of the Superior Court of the county in
which the municipality lies requiring the
municipal officials to enforce such zoning
ordinance. The Attorney General shall be
made a party to all civil and criminal actions
in which the pleadings challenge the legality
of any ordinance or portion thereof adopted
pursuant to the guidelines promulgated under
section 4813.

Every coastal town administers and enforces its own "Shoreland
Ordinance." Decision making typically rests with the Code E117
forcement Officer, who is often the Town Manager, or the Planning
.Board, depending on the permit required. (In some towns the
Board of Selectmen act as the Planning Board,) Appeals are
generally heard by a Board of Appeals appointed by the municipal
officers.

Each local shoreland ordinance lists which uses require a permit
from the Code Enforcement Officer or the Planning Board and, although
exact submission requirements may vary locally, applications must
be submitted in writing. Additional information may then be requir-
ed to determine if the application conforms with the ordinance.
Generally, action as to whethera permit has been approved, approved
with conditions, or denied, should occur within 60 days of receipt
of a complete application. No permit can be denied if it is in
conformance with the provisions of the ordinance. Among other
things, the minimum Guidelines require that the Planning Board of
Enforcement Officer find that the proposed use 11witt conzeAve
actuat point,5 oJ pubtit accezz to watet.6,11 and "witt conzetve
vizuat pointz o6 accezz to watetz az viewed J,%om pubtic @acititiez.
Any person found in violation of any provision of a local shoreland
ordinance may, after reasonable notice, be fined for each violation.

3.2 Protection Policies and Legal Authorities

Enforceable State policies and legal authorities pertaining to
shoreland protection have been articulated in the section of Maine's
Coastal Program concerned with Goals, Objectives and Policies

(Section 6), Drawn from the eleven "core" laws of Maine's Coastal
Program, the primary protection policies can be summarized as
follows:

- Assure that development in shoreland areas is conducted
so that healthful conditions and water quality are
maintained, wildlife habitat is conserved and structures
are placed so as to conserve shore cover, water access,
and points of natural beauty,

- Assure that the subdivision of land is conducted in such
a way that air and water quality is maintained, soils
remain stable, safe highway conditions prevail, and
scenic values and areas of natural beauty are conserved.

- Assure that activities in coastal wetlands conserve
wildlife, and freshwater, estuarine or marine fisheries
and their habitats, through a permit procedure,

DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

DESIGNATION 'OF SPECIAL MANA'GEMENT AREAS

Areas of Particular Concern and Areas for Preservation or Restoration
may be considered special because of their coastal related values or
because they may face pressures which require detailed attention.
4.1 Areas of Particular Concern

Mainets Coastal Program has defined as geographic areas of particular
concern all land areas within 250 feet of normal high water of any
great pond, river, or salt water body in the state's coastal area
(Appendix C). The Shoreland Zoning Law and Land Use Regulation
Commission, in its jurisdiction, provide a means to control and
guide development in these areas.

4.2 Areas for Preservation or Restoration

Besides this, the Program includes as areas for preservation or
restoration (1) Class A waters, (2) resource protection districts
within 250 feet of shoreline and (3) certain specified protection
districts under the jurisdiction of the Land Use Regulation Com-
mission (Appendix D). Each of these areas has been designated
under existing state law for the purpose of preserving or restor-
ing them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or
esthetic values.

The Coastal Program is also supportive of Mainels Critical Areas
Program (Appendix D3). The Critical Areas Program identifies,
documents, registers, and encourages the conservation of areas
with natural features of state significance. The Program has
been described in greater detail elsewhere in this discussion.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND FUNDING PROGRAMS

5. LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND FUNDING PROGRAMS

Every level of jurisdiction and each agency has specified concerns
and responsibilities pertaining to shorefront access and protection.
The following concepts outline general responsibilities of legal
authorities.

Federal jurisdiction - protection, acquisition, develop-
ment and management of land and facilities of national
importance;

State jurisdiction - protection, acquisition, develop-
ment and management of land and facilities of statewide
importance;

Municipal jurisdiction - protection, acquisition, develop-
ment, and management of land facilities of local importance.

Of course, there is cooperation among jurisdictionswhere, for
instance, the federal government provides financial assistance
for state and local programs as through the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund.

The provision of increased access and protection opportunities
depends to a large extent upon adequate funding at all levels. it
is germaine to cite the major funding sources through which monies
are available for access and conservation projects in coastal
Maine.

5.1 Federal

A major source of federal funds for public recreation and open
space projects in Maine is the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LAWCON) administered by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service. The State of Maine received $1.75 million in LAWCON
monies during fiscal year 1977. Beginning in FY 1980, Maine is
expected to receive approximately $4.7 million annually due to a
recent amendment to LAWCON authorizing a total national expendi-
ture of $900 million annually. This new level means a major in-
crease in matching funds available to the State. In addition,
LAWCON monies can be matched with revenue sharing funds under
Public Law 94-488. They can also be matched with Community
Development Block Grants.

The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service has three major refuges in
coastal Maine; the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in
southern Maine and the Moosehorn and Petit Manan National Wild-
life Refuges in Washington County. Additions, funded through the
sale of "duck stamps" will be made to the Rachel Carson Refuge
to round out the 4,011 acre total authorized acquisition. Further
funding may be available under recent amendments to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. The Service now has authority to purchase

nationally significant wildlife ecosystems" and "unique wild---ife
ecosystems." Increases in authorized LAWCON monies bring the
national projected funding level to $75-80 million per year for
FY 1980-89. The Service may, in the near future, acquire one or
more large coastal island properties in eastern Maine to add to
its refuge holdings.
The National Park Service during the 1970's, has been preparii.,ig
a master plan for Acadia National Park. This process continu,E!s
and is expected to include a review of proposed island acquisi-
tions in Hancock and Knox Counties.
The U.S. DOT, Bureau of Public Roads can assist the state highway
department in the control of outdoor advertising, and the screening
of junk yards under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, both of
which improve visual attractiveness of coastal areas.

The Office of Coastal Zone Management has funds for three types
of relevant programs. Coastal Zone Management monies can be
used for (1) state regional and local planning for coastal re-
source conservation and development, (2) the establishment of
estuarine sanctuaries, and (3) the acquisition of lands to provide
access to public coastal areas, particularly beaches, and to pre-
serve coastal islands. The last of these is the most relevant to
this discussion. Under Section 315 (2) of the CZMA Amendments of
1976, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized "to make 50% grants
to any coastal state to acquire lands to provide access to public
beaches and other public coastal areas." To meet these ends, an
annual appropriation of $25,000,000 through FY 1980 has been
authorized.

While not a direct funding program, federal surplus properties
should also be mentioned. Several military service branches,
including the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard, hold important,
pieces of real estate on the Maine coast. If and when these
become available as surplus properties, the State or local gov-
ernments could acquire them for open space and access.

5.2 State
A principal source of funds for outdoor recreation and resource
conservation at the state level is the Maine Bureau of Parks and
Recreation. As of November, 1977, the Bureau had $3.2 million
remaining from two land acquisition bond issues and $1.8 million
from a development bond issue approved in referendum. Much of the
acquisition money will be used to purchase land inland at Bigelow
Mountain under a referendum mandate approved by Maine voters in
1976. Besides these bond issue funds, the Bureau anticipates a
$25,000 legislative appropriation in matching funds during FY 1979
for community recreation projects. Finally, $16,050 remains in a
nonlapsing account available on a 50 percent matching basis -to
local conservation commissions for open space and recreation
planning.
There are a number of considerations which affect the funds needed
and available for development of unimproved properties currently

held by the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Pending litigation
over the ownership of public lot grass and timber rights is one
variable. If the State does not win its claim to ownership of
the rights, the Bureau may be able to use the donated value of
the rights as the State's share to apply for matching LAWCON
monies. Another unknown factor is the cost of development of
some presently undeveloped holdings. Estimates have been made
for most but not all of these parcels. Third, development costs
of many projects are not matched 50-50, state-federal, since some
improvements are not eligible for federal reimbursement. The
match is often closer to 60-40, state-federal.
All of these considerations aside, it is estimated that through
1980 the State will be able to come up with funds sufficient to
match about 40 percent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
monies allocated to Maine as potential matching funds for both
state and local projects.

As discussed in 1.11, the Bureau of Parks and Recreation also
administers the State's Public Facilities for Boats Program,
financed through a Boating Facilities Fund. Money for the fund
comes from a segment of the gasoline tax paid by the nonhighway
gasoline user. Based on the 1965 legislative "finding of fact"
that motorboat users account for at least 1.25% of the total
gasoline consumption, there is set aside 1.25% of the total
excise tax on internal combustion engine fuel sold or used within
Maine (excluding aircraft). From this 1.25% are deducted refunds
paid to purchasers and users of gasoline for commercial motorboats.
Eighty percent of the balance of the 1.25% after paying out such
refunds is credited to the Boating Faciliti-s Fund. About $350,000
is channelled to the fund annually.
Aside from the Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the major state
agency with funding for land conservation and access is the
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. In 1974, a $4
million referendum was approved by voters for acquisitions by
the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The
Department planned to allocate these funds according to the
following habitats:

1. Upland Areas . . . . . . . . . . 40-50% of money
2. Coastal Salt Marsh . . . . . . . 20-25%
3. Inland Wetland and Stream
Flow Augmentation . . . . . . 20-25%
4. Eider Nesting Islands . . . . . 5-10%
5. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . 5-10%

Some coastal lands have already been acquired by the Department
with these monies; approximately $1.3 million dollars remai.ns.
The Department also provides water access in important coastal
areas for wildfowl hunters.

Visual access on the coast is enhanced both by the activities of
the Maine Department of Transportation and the granting of con-
servation easements by private landowners to State and other land
holding agencies.

In addition to budgeting money for highway rest areas, the
Department of Transportation also will assist in the imple-
mentation of the Maine Traveler Information Services Act, which
is designed to protect the scenic beauty of Maine roadsides by
controling indiscriminate use of outdoor advertising. Both of
these programs improve visual access to the shore.

Under Maine statutes Title 33 � 667-668, "conservation restric-
tions"'are defined and authorized for acquisition by any govern-
mental body having power to acquire interest in land. Some non-
governmental organizations may also accept conservation easements
under particular circumstances, for example,if they hold title to
lands adjacent to or within sight of the land for which an ease-
ment is being sought. to date about 9,000 acres of private lands
have been encumbered with conservation easements in the coastal
area. Easements have been accepted along the Maine coast which
restrict development, thus preserving visual access, by the
National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the National Audubon Society,
the Nature Conservancy, the Maine Audubon Society, and a number
of coastal towns.

5.3 Local

According to the 1977 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan, through 1990 communities in Maine are expected to provide
approximately $23 million for acquisition of land for outdoor
recreation statewide. Local funds are provided through municipal
recreation committees and/or conservation commissions.

APPENDICES

Attachment A

CRITERIA FOR PROPOSED COASTAL SANDY BEACH
AND DUNE CRITICAL AREAS

1. Beach and Dune areas must be in a natural state.
1, Geographic distribution,
3. Scientific and educational values.
4. Only geological and botanical criteria are considered.

Geological Criteria - Two criteria were developed to determine the
geological significance of a beach or dune area. One criterion was
whether an area constituted a good example of the various geomorphic
ypes and features. The second criterion was to include those examples
which, either through their dune and beachface morphology or actual
t

response behaviour, manifest the interaction between the physical ele-
ments of beach systems and various process agents. These criteria pro-
duced two lists, those geomorphic types and features which occur in
Maine and those various process agents which leave their imprint on
Maine beaches and dunes, These lists are as follows:

Botanical Criteria - All undisturbed coastal sand dune and berm plant
habitats in Maine are significant simply because of their limited
extent. Additional criteria for the determination of significant
coastal sandy dune and berm plant habitats are based on the following
botanical features.

Landward to seaward zonation caused by salt spray effects, soil
nutrient changes, and sand burial or deflation rates.

Mosaic floristic patterns in stabilized parabolic dune fields,

Dune field successional stages subsequent to accretion, fire, foot
traffic, grazing, cutting or eolian activity.

Vegetation development in overwashes and breaches.

Vegetation patterns on perennially accreting berms and spits.

Good stands of species with limited acreage in the state; e,g.
American Beachgrass, Beach Heather, Wormwood, Jointweed,

Disjunct populations, especially stands of American Beachgrass
north of Reid State Park.

Geographic trends in abundance or ecotype which are of scientific
value.

The range limits of the following coastal sandy dune and berm
plants in Maine: wormwood, beach plum, beach heather, earthstar
puffball, jointweed, pinweed, seaside spurge.

Source: Bruce W. Nelson & L. Kenneth Fink, Jr. Geological and Botanical
Features of Sand Beach Systems in Maine,prepared for Maine
Critical Areas Program, March 1978.

1. Ogunquit Beach

2. Laudholm Beach

3. Crescent Surf Beach

4. Farsons Beach

5. Goose Rocks Beach

6. Western Beath

7. Scarborough Beach

8. Main Beach, Ram Island Farm

9. Strawberry Hill Beach, Ram Island Farm

10. Crescent Beach
146 11. Bailey Beach
cow
12. Seawall Beach

13. Popham Beach

14. Reid Beach

15. Pemaquid Beach

16. Louds Island Beach

17. Pond Island Beach

a 18. Merchant Island -Pocket Beach
rA 19. Merchant Island -Cuspate Foreland Beach

20, Marshall Island -Sand Cove Beach

21. Marshall 131and -Carbonate Sand Beach

22. Swan's island - irish Cove Beach

'A
23. Swan's Island - Fine Sand 3each

24. Sand Beach

25. Sandy River Beach

26. Roque island Beach

27. Roque Kuifs Beach

td
0 (D
CO r-L

d"O

0 (D

0 h
co OIQ
H. Fj- Cn
C-F 0
(D P3

Attachment B

MAINE COASTAL RECREATIONAL BEACHES OF STATE LEVEL SIGNIFICANCE
Cwest to east)

BEACH MUNICIPALITY OWNERSHIP OPEN TO PUBLIC

1 Long Sands York Municipal Yes
2 Short Sands York Municipal Yes
3 Ogunquit Ogunquit Municipal Yes
4 Moody Wells Private Yes
5 Wells Wells Private Yes
6 Drakes Island Wells Private Yes
7 Laudholm Wells State Yes
8 Crescent Surf Kennebunk Private No
9 Parsons Kennebunk Private Yes
10 Goochs Kennebunk Municipal Yes
11 Goose Rocks Kennebunkport Private Limited
12 Fortune Rocks Biddeford Private/Mun Limited
13 Hills Biddeford Private No
14 Saco Beaches Saco Private/State Limited
15 Old Orchard Old Orchard Beach Municipal Yes
16 Pine Point Scarborough Private Yes
17 Ferry Scarborough Municipal Yes
18 Western Scarborough Private Limited
19 Scarborough Scarborough Private/State Limited
20 Higgins Scarborough Private Yes
21 Crescent Cape Elizabeth State Yes
22 Willard So. Portland Municipal Yes
23 Andrews Portland State Yes CLimited')
24 Little Chebeaque Portland State Yes (Limited)
25 Seawall Phippsburg Private Limited
26 Popham-Hunnewell Phippsburg Private/State Yes
27 Reid Georgetown State Yes
28 Pemaquid Bristol Municipal Yes
29 Lincolnville Lincolnville Private/Mun Yes
30 Pond Island Private Yes
31 Sand Bar Harbor Federal Yes
32 Sandy River Jonesport Private Limited
33 Roque Island Jonesport Private Yes (Limited)
34 Roque Bluffs Roque Bluffs State Yes

Source: James A. St. Pierre, Mainels Coastal Beaches: Recreation and
Conservation (Draft), prepared for Maine Bureau of Parks and
Recreation, July 1978.

62:2
Q@p

7 Maine Coastal Rec
24
a @5 of State Level Si

OCLC: 7371885 Rec stat: n
Entered: 19810428 Replaced: 19950222 Used: 19810428
S Type: a Bib Ivi: m Source: d Lang: eng
Repr: Enc Lv1: I Conf pub: 0 Ctry: xxu
1ndx: 0 Mod rec: Govt pub: u Cont: b
Desc: a Int LvL: Festschr: 0 IlLus: ab
FIB: 0 Dat tp: s Dates: 1978, %
$ 1 040 COF Ic COF %
S 2 090 1b %
S 3 049 NOW %
$ 4 245 00 Maine's coastal program : 1b procedures for coastal shorefront
access and protection, shoreline erosion assessment and mitigation, energy
facility siting. %
$ 5 260 [S.1. : lb s.n.], Ic 1978. %
S 6 300 137 p. in various pagings : 1b itt., maps ; Ic 28 cm. %
S 7 500 Cover title. %
S 8 500 "The Draft report on Shorefront access and protection planning
in Maine was prepared by Bureau of Parks and Recreation of the Maine Dept. of
Conservation and the Draft report on Energy facilities siting was prepared with
the assistance of the Maine Office of Energy Resources"--T.p. verso. %
$ 9 500 "Draft." %
$ 10 500 "Corrected and submitted September 27, 1978.11 %
S 11 504 includes bibliographies. %
$ 12 650 0 Coastal zone management 1z Maine. %
S 13 650 0 Beaches 1z Maine Ix Planning. %
$ 14 650 0 Energy facilities 1z Maine Ix Location. %
$ 15 710 1 Maine. 1b Bureau of Parks and Recreation. %
S 16 710 1 Maine. 1b Office of Energy Resources. %

ENERGY FACILITIES PLANNING
IN MAINE

Fulfilling Requirements of Section 305 (b) 8 of
The Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976

The assistance of the Office of Energy Resources in the
preparation of this report is greatly appreciated.

Financial assistance for the preparStion of this
document has been provided by the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, administered
by the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
mitional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

0. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1

1. ENERGY FACILITIES LIKELY TO LOCATE ON MAINE COAST 4

1.0 Introduction 4

1.1 Natural Gas 4

1.2 Petroleum 6

1.3 Coal 9

1.4 Electricity 9

1.4.1 Coal 11

1.4.2 Nuclear 11

1.4.3 Wood 11

1.4.4 Tidal 11

1.4.5 Hydro 11

1.5 Outer Continental Shelf 12

1.6 Energy Facilities Not Considered Likely 12

1.7 Deep Water Ports 13

2. ASSESSING THE SUITABILITY OF SITES 14

2.1 Assessment of Alternative Sites 14

2.2 Regulatory Procedures 15

2.2.1 Energy-related Utility 15

2.2.2 Energy Facilities Which Are Not Utilities 18

2.3 Statutes with Regulatory Authority 18

2.3.1 Public Utilities and Carriers Law 18

2.3.2 Shoreland Zoning Act 20

2.3.3 Municipal Planning and Zoning 20

2.3.4 Land Use Regulation Commission 21

2.3.5 Site Location of Development Act 22

PAGE

2.3 .6 Protection and Improvement of Air 24

2.3.7 Protection and Improvement of Waters 25

2.3.8 Oil Discharge Prevention and Pollution Control 26

2.3.9 Alteration of Coastal Wetlands 28

2.3.10 Great Ponds Act 29

2.3.11 Alteration of Rivers, Streams, Brooks 30

2.3.12 Mining and Minerals 31

2.3.13 Public Lands 31

2.4 Statutes with Advisory Authority 32

2.4.1 Maine State Energy Resources Act 32

2.4.2 Act for State Register of Critical Areas 33

2.5 Memoranda of Agreements 35

2.6 State Consideration of the National Interest 38

2.6.1 Conservation of Energy 38

2.6.2 Oil Refineries 38

2.6.3 Outer Continental Shelf 39

2.6.4 Nuclear Power 40

2.6.5 Liquified Natural Gas 40

2.6.6 Pipelines 41

2.6.7 Strategic Petroleum Reserve 41

3. STATE POLICIES FO R MANAGING ENERGY FACILITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS 42

3.1 Policies Related to the Development of Energy Resources 42

in the State

3.2 Natural Resource Management Policies Affecting the Develop- 44

ment of Energy Facilities

3.3 State Policies on OCS Development 45

4.0 PLANNING PROCESS FOR NEW ENERGY FACILITIES 47

4.1 Office of Energy Resources 47

PAGE

4.2 State Planning Office 49
4.3 Other Governmental Agencies 51
4.4 In Cooperation With Other Agencies 52

4.4.1 NERBC 52
4.4.2 Northeast Solar Energy Center 53
4.4.3 NERCOM 53
4.4.4 New England Federal Regional Council Energy 54

Resource Development Task Force

4.4.5 National Governors Association 54
4.4.6 Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council 54
5.0 PRINCIPAL STATE AGENCIES 56

5.1 Department of Environmental Protection 56

5.2 Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 56

5.3 Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) 56

5.4 Geological Survey 56

5.5 Maine Office of Energy Resources 56

5.6 State Planning Office 56

APPENDICES

I
I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

E
I N
E
I R
G
I y
F
I A
c
I I
L
I
I T
I y
s
I I
T
I
I N
I G
I
I
I
I
I
I

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

0. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This report documents Maine's existing framework for antici-
pating and managing the impact from energy facilities in or af-
fecting Maine's Coastal Area. The report will supplement Maine's
Coastal Program document adding descriptions of the Public Utili-
ties Commission and the Office of Energy Resources, and ampli-
fying the descriptions of laws which are the core of Main'e's Coastal
Program but focusing on their role in regulating the siting of
energy related facilities.

For the purpose of this report, energy facilities will include
any equipment or facility which is used primarily for exploration,
storage, transfer, processing or transporting any energy resource;
or for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment, ma-
chinery, products or devices which are involved in energy producing
activity.

The report is organized according to outline suggested in the
Federal Register (Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1, 1978). The prargraph
in parenthesis under each section is from the Federal Register.

Section 1

Identifies energy facilities which are likely to locate in,
or which may significantly affect, the coastal area. Based on exist-
ing and future demands, it is anticipated that facilities related to
liquified natural gas (LNG), petroleum industry, electric generating
plants, facilities related to OCS activities and coal storage/handling
may wish to locate on the Maine coast and be subject to the State's
site review process.

Section 2

Describes the procedures used for assessing the suitability of
sites for the proposed facility. This procedure includes both the
regulatory mechanism and the availability of technical planning ser-
vices which aid the developer in selecting sites prior to seeking
a license or permit.

The State Planning Office through its work under Section 305
has developed an extensive series of resource maps, sponsored plan-
ning reports and initiated a policy refining process all of which
serve to guide the planning for energy facilities.

The primary, and most important regulatory measure for assessing
suitability of energy facility sites is the Site Law administered
by the Board of Environmental Protection. Other agencies, with re-
lated roles, described in this section are:

Land Use Regulation Commission, Department of Inland Fisheries
and Wildlife, Bureau of Public Lands, Maine Geological Survey, State
Planning Office and the local municipalities.

The role of the Public Utilities Commission with resPect to
new energy producing utilities is considerable and is des-
cribed in this section.

Section 3

Describes the existing State policies for managing energy
facilities and their impacts. In addition to the enforceable
policies expressed in the laws of the Governor and the State's
Comprehensive Energy Plan has also set policies which guide
decisions regarding energy facilities.

Key policies of the State's energy plan are to encourage
the development of alternate energy source in order to create
and to improve the regulatory process governing energy develop-
ment to minimize government interference while protecting the
State's consumers and environment.

Maine has no policies excluding energy facilities from the
coastal zone. Management policies reflect the State's concern
for resource preservation and conservation. The policies are em-
bodied in the 11 core laws contained in the Proposal for Maine's
Coastal Program.

Section 4

Describes the current planning activities and the information
considered in that process.

Short and long-range energy planning as well as forecasting is
primarily the responsibility of the Maine Office of Energy Resources
(OER).

The State Planning Office has ongoing work on planning for OCS
development in Georges Bank, mapping and resource analysis work for
identifying suitable sites, providing socio-economic data for other
private and public planning purposes and through its coastal program
of local agents and regional planning agencies.

Additionally, the coastal unit of the SPO provides staff for the
Governor's Advisory Committee on Coastal Development and Conservation
which is presently engaged in examining existing State policies re-
garding the siting of heavy industry on the Maine coast.

The State of Maine cooperates with several Regional and Federal
agencies on assessing the energy needs of the State, region and nation.
This cooperation has ranged from receiving and reviewing data/projec-
tions to advisory arrangements with various interstate agencies.

Agencies that Maine is currently cooperating with in an advisory
capacity on energy planning matters include the New England River
Basins Commission, Northeast Solar Energy Center, New England Federal
Regional Council Energy Resource Development Task Force, and the Massa-
chusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council.

Section 5

Briefly describes the principle agencies with functions related
to the planning for a regulation of energy-related facilities.
Agencies whose function was already covered in previous sections
of this report include the Department of Environmental Protection,
Public Utilities Commission, Land Use Regulation Commission, Maine
Geological Survey, Maine Office of Energy Resources and the State
Planning Office.

I
I ENERGY FACILITIES LIKELY TO LOCATE ON THE MAINE COAST 1
1 E
N
I . E
R
I G
I y
F
I A
c
I
I L
I
I T
y
I s
. I
I T
I
I N
G
I
I
I
I
I
I

1. ENERGY FACILITIES LIKELY TO LOCATE ON THE MAINE COAST

(An identification of energy facilities which are likely to locate
in, or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone. (Federal
Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, Section 923.14 (1))

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Recent history has shown that the Maine coast has been considered
as a desirable location for several different types of energy related
facilitie s. This interest is likely to continue in the future. The
types most likely to locate in Maine are energy conversion or energy
storage facilities which would be attracted by Maine's clean air, cold
water, and relatively undeveloped land.

In this report "energy facilities" considered were those described
in the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-370),
Section 304(5). These included any equipment or facility which would
be used primarily

1) "in the exploration for, or the storage, transfer, pro-
cessing, or transportation of, any energy resource; or

2) for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equip-
ment, machinery, products, or devices which are in-
volved in any activity described... in part (1)."

Examples of energy facilities are electric generating plants, pe-
troleum refineries, oil terminals, liquefied natural gas (LNG) termi-
nals, and Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) platform construction.

The existing flow of energy in Maine in 1974 is sh own on Figure 1.
It is obvious that Maine is currently heavily dependent on Petroleum
fuel. (Source: Maine Comprehensive Energy Plan, 1976, Volume II,
Appendix 2)

1.1 NATURAL GAS

The United States uses natural gas for 34% of its total energy con-
sumption. Since 1970, domestic finds of natural gas have decreased in
the face of more intensive drilling efforts. Consequently, efforts
have been made to increase available supplies of natural gas through
development of facilities for receiving imported liquefied natural gas
(LNG).

In 1976, Tenneco Inc. announced plans to locate an LNG gasification
plant in St. John, New Brunswick. If approved, the LNG would be re-
gasified and put into a pipeline traversing the State of Maine. The
existence of the pipeline would probably attract other LNG importers
to consider the Maine coast for LNG ports.

Figure 1

FLOW OF ENERGY IN MAINE, 1974

SOURCES BILLION BTU PER CENT

All,Sources: 317,780 100.0

Coal 1,315 0.4
Fuelwood 6,773 2.1
Natural gas 1,724 0.5
Petroleum 243,724 76.7

Residual 96,015 30.2
Distillate 66,894 21.1
Kerosene 6,328 2.0
LPG 4,326 1.4
Jet Fuel 5,181 1.6
Gasoline 64,981 20.4
Hydropower 33,290 10.5
Nuclear power 38,099 12.0
Net exports of electricity -7,145 -2.2

Intermediate uses: 116,865 36.8

Hydroelectric generation 33,290 10.5
Nuclear electric generation 38,099 12.0
Other thermal electric genera-
tion 45,470 14.3

Ultimate uses; 317,780 100.0

Residential 78,242 24.6
Commercial 33,502 10.5
Industrial 105,757 33.3
Transportation 87,021 27.4
Miscellaneous 5,726 1.8
Electricity transmission losses 7,532 2.4

Between 1985 and 2000 there is a strong possibility that LNG re
gasification could occur in Maine. Despite best efforts to convert
industry to coal, and conservation efforts, rising demand and decreasing
domestic gas supplies are expected to bring about a need for more LNG
imports.

Three types of facilities will be required to handle LNG imports:
1) a terminal to offload ships, 2) a regasification plant to change
liquid natural gas to its gaseous state, and 3) a pipeline to carry the
gas to market.

The LNG imports are carried in vessels having a storage capacity of
up to 125,000 cubic meters. Proposals to date indicate that the natural
gas pipelines to carry regasified LNG will have a capacity of 1 billion
cubic feet per day.

1.2 PETROLEUM

Figure I indicates Maine is currently very heavily dependent upon
petroleum fuel.

Three types of petroleum-related facilities are possible in Maine
during the next 25 years. These include: 1) oil terminals, 2) oil re-
fineries and 3) strategic petroleum reserve/regional storage. Oil ter-
minals are an ancillary facility to either an oil refinery or a petro-
leum distribution system.

Oil Terminals

Figure 2 shows Maine's current storage facility for bulk petroleum
products. Current information indicates adequate storage capacity for
all but industrial residual fuels. (Source: Maine Comprehensive Energy
Plan, 1976. More detailed information may be obtained from the Office
of Energy Resources, Augusta, ME) Inventory levels at any instant in
time are not generally available. The expectation is that oil terminals
will be added to meet expanded demand. Total added capacity for storage
of all fuel types except crude oil is expected to be no more than four
million barrels between 1975 and 1985 for the State of Maine, according
to Maine Office of Energy Resources and Department of Energy estimates.

A marine oil terminal for a 250,000 barrel per day oil refinery
would require sufficient capacity to store about 30 day's supply of
crude oil (industry average) or approximately 7.5 million barrels of oil.
Oil refineries will probably be served by their own marine terminals.

Figure 3 shows the petroleum and gas pipelines currently in use in
Maine. The oil handling facility in So. Portland is the beginning of the
Portland-Montreal Pipeline. In the recent past up to 169,000,000 barrels
of oil have been shipped through Portland.

FIGURE 2

AROOSTOOK
24,000 Bb1s.

:r ------r--------------------

L----------

PISCATAqUIS

S
'PRS i IIt
OM. ET
r

PENOBSCOT
1,474,900 Bbls@

I
%

WASHINGTON
r s
FRANKLIN 711,90C Bb-L
1200 Bbis.

t '--@ANCOCK
0
s
WALDO 926 000
KENNEBEC -1
4oc
r.
i OXFORD 11,306,400 _J115 -
Bbls.,
Bb1s.
@.KNC ;@
ANDRO--@- 4 8 oo Is
t@ " LINCOU,

Bbls!.
CUMBERLAND
,@,091,400

SAGADAHOC

Y ORK
200,_500
EXISTING PET-ROL'-'z'UYi PRODUCT BULY
i Bbis.
ols

CAPACT
STORAGE ATIES BY C,r',-N7lY

Source: Maine Comprehensive
Energy Plan 1976 Edition

FIGURE 3

Source: Maine Comprehensive
Energy Plan 1976
Edition

1@ 7 1 T 0

i T-

z
7.

j'7'

C
NDAGICOtG1
C,

PETROLF-04 AND GAS PIPELINES
IN MAINE (EX'ISTING'
C
0
Ki r" 1. Northern Utilities- Natural gas pipe-
C line to Portland and Lewiston-Aubu-n.
2. Portland Pipeline Corporation- Crude
oil pipeline, Portland to YontLre:-1.
-Dor -' L__
Mobil Oil Co-y- ation- D-s@@Ilatc
@\7--:-V4 00V.@@_ products pipeline, Portland to Bangor.
U. S. Air Force- Jet Puel Pipeline,
SearsDort to Limestone.

NOTE:Routing schematic and arDroximate only. Not accurate in 6eta4l.

Oil Refineries

Oil refining is expected to occur in Maine between 1975 and 2000
for a number of reasons: 1) the Pittston oil refinery application may
finally be resolved by Canada in Pittston's favor, 2) the Federal Govern-
ment. has made strong indications that the New England States should locally
supply more of their demand for refined products, 3) Maine has deep water
anchorage to make supertanker traffic relatively safe and crude oil imports
relatively inexpensive, and 4) the demand for petroleum products (barring
extremely effective conservation measures) will increase in Maine and New
England.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve/Regional Storage

The Federal strategic petroleum reserve program calls for storage of
crude oil or petroleum products in underground caverns. Inclusion of this
facility occurs for two reasons: 1) the facility transportation modE@s and
the construction period work force correspond in size and scale to the
same characteristics of other energy facilities, and 2) a regional petro-
leum reserve site in Maine would run the same environmental risks, trans-
portation problems, and regulations as an oil terminal. Although the use
is functionally different, the characteristics of the facility and the
impacts upon the community are similar.

1.3 COAL

Currently coal is not a major source of energy in Maine, only 4% of
the energy generated. There is a proposal by Central Maine Power Company
for the construction of a 600 MW coal fired electric generation plant at
Sears Island. The facility is to consist of both a power plant and a
coal storage and handling terminal.
Apart from the use of coal for electric generation, there is a like-
lihood of increased industrial coal use. Since barge or ship transport
of coal is less expensive per ton/mile than rail, there is a possibility
that rising coal use will require at least one major coal handling termi-
nal and storage facility. Rail-borne coal is expected to offer strong
competition to water borne transportation in capturing the energy market
in the near future.

The largest industries in Maine consume approximately 1.25 million
barrels of oil per year. In equivalent energy terms, this translates to
an average of 1,000 tons per day of coal. This limit is somewhat arbi-
trarily determinedto be the size of a facility requiring large invest-
ment in equipment and storage space. Under these conditions, locations
at docking facilities used to support industry and in proximity to rail
transportation are desirable.

1.4 ELECTRICITY
Figure 4 shows the location and type of all generating plants and
the voltage of existing transmission lines. Currently, Maine has suf-
ficient electric generation capacity to meet the State's needs.

FIGURE 4

aa n a.. i zAing
Plants&
qWwconnectincs
i-ransmission
ines of
Nlew England
Prpjectddto1985

C-

E-T-, IIST@@MNS LEGEND

0 0
SU ST.TQ. A
0
Q)

1K- -

Source: "Elr-ctric 11tility Industry in New
Fngland", Statistical Bulletin 1975,
10 from the Electr4c Coun-il of New
@ngland (-EC@'-47E)

Five types of electric generation facilities are possible choices
for the near future: 1) coal, 2) nuclear, 3) wood, 4) tidal, and 5) hy-
dro power.

1.4.1 Coal

In 1976, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) announced their intE!n-
tion to build a 600 MW coal-fired power plant on Sears Island. A coal
receiving and handling facility would also be built. This plant would
come on line by approximately 1985 to supply power to Maine and the rest
of New England.

1.4.2 Nuclear

Maine's currently existing nuclear power plant, Maine Yankee at:
Wiscasset, has a capacity of 855 MW. In 1974 it generated 12% of the
total energy in the State.

Tentative plans exist for a nuclear power plant to be built in
Richmond, Maine to begin operations in 1992. Options on the land have
already been purchased. The plant would supply approximately 1,000 MW
power. Recently, CMP postponed further action on this proposal until
there has been a resolution of the regulatory questions surrounding the
process of siting nuclear power plants. A study by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is now in progress.

1.4.3 Wood

Considerable efforts are being made to obtain funds for a 50 to 100
MW wood-fired electric power plant. Although wood-fired electric genera-
tion will probably occur in Maine before the end of the century, there is
no real need to locate such a facility in the coastal towns. It will most
likely be located next to large sources of wood waste such as a pull) mill
or saw mill. Bucksport is the only coastal community which has a pulp
mill.

1.4.4 Tidal

Analysis of the Passamaquoddy Tidal Power project is under way by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project was first seriously proposed in
1919; construction was initiated in 1935, but halted two years later due
to lack of funds. Since that time the project has been studied several
times. The most recent study (1977) by Stone and Webster Engineering Cor-
poration shows that the life cycle costs of the project are acceptable
but not likely favorable. Funding for the project is uncertain. If a
decision is made to build the project, construction probably would not
begin before the mid 1980's. Tidal power is subject to unique natural
resource conditions found only in Washington County.

1.4.5 Hydr o

The rejuvenation of hydroelectric facilities along the coast is
being currently evaluated by the Office of Energy Resources. Central

Maine Power is currently expanding a hydroelectric facility from 2400
MW to 12,000 MW in Topsham. CMP is also evaluating upgrading a dam at Cataract
Falls in Saco. Maine Hydro Electric Development Corporation is study-
ing an American Tissue abandoned dam at Cobbossee Stream in Gardiner
and the Town of Frankfurt and Kennebunk are looking into upgrading
small dams in those towns.

1.5 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF PLATFORM CONSTRUCTION

OCS exploration for petroleum on Georges Bank raises the potential
for an oil platform construction yard to be located in Maine. Since
there is a 50/50 chance of a commercially large find of oil or natural
gas and a substantial find would have to occur to warrant construction
of a platform yard, the probability that a yard would be located in Maine
is extremely low. Competition in the platform construction industry is
intense and location of one platform construction yard in New England
would lead a competitor to want a close location. Competition in the
market place will determine whether this occurs.

While platforms may be constructed of either steel or concrete
platforms may be used primarily because of the severe weather conditions,
in the North Atlantic and their built in storage capability. Virtually
all of the potential sites for concrete platform construction on the East
Coast of the U.S. exist in Maine.

Since Georges Bank weather conditions are presumably as bad as the
North Sea, and concrete platforms have played a major part in the develop-
ment of that regions oil fields, it is realistic to assume that a
large find of oil in Georges Bank may result in the use of concrete drill-
ing platforms.

1.6 ENERGY FACILITIES NOT CONSIDERED LIKELY

Other types of energy facilities considered were: 1) petrochemical
plants, and 2) uranium enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities,
both with such a low probability that they were ruled out, at least at
this time.

Petrochemical plants require the by-products from approximately one
million barrels per day of refining capacity to be economic. Since it is
easier to expand capacity at existing refineries in other areas of the
U.S. than it is to build a new refinery, at the most, no more than two are
expected in Maine between now and the year 2000. However, development of
a terminal able to accept very large crude carriers (VLCC) may induce
greater development.

Enrichment and nuclear fuel processing facilities are not expected
to come to the State. Although the Department of Energy is promoting ex-
panded enrichment capacity to provide fuel for operating and planned reac-
tors, no overtures have ever been made to locate processing facilities in
Maine. Furthermore, the State has no known commercial quantities of ura-
nium ore. A processing plant could be built in Maine, utilizing imported
raw materials, but the probability appears low at the present time.

1.7 DEEP WATER PORTS

Maine.has a number of existing and potential sites for deep water
ports. The port of Portland is currently the site of a major oil trans-
port and storage facility is the most active port on the coast of Maine.
The average dept h at mean low tide is 28 feet. % I
The port at Searsport has a controlling depth of 35 feet. It is
currently the major dry cargo port primarily for forest and agricultural
.products. With the proposed Sears Island coal-fired plant it will also
be a coal port.
Other areas with a natural but undeveloped deep harbor includEl
Eastport which has been approved as a site for the Pittston Oil Refinery.
Machias has been mentioned as a site for a terminal or oil refinery.

A detailed analysis of Maine's port facilities is available on re-
quest "Maine Port Development Study Phase I, Port Facility Inventory and
Evaluation, Volumes I" from the State Planning Office.

I
I ASSESSING THE SUITABILITY OF SITES 2
1 E
I N
E
R
I G
I y
F
I t
I L
I
I T
y
1. s
I
I T
I
I N
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

@z, I -

2. ASSESSING THE SUITABILITY OF SITES

(Procedures for assessing the suitability of sites for energy
facilities)

To explain Maine's procedures for assessing the suitability of
sites, this section will first indicate the type of available infor-
mation that developers may use in assessing alternative sites, des-
cribe in some detail how the regulations and related statutes work
to assess site suitability and show how the national interest is con-
sidered by the State in its siting decisions.

2.1 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE SITES

Prior to submitting an application for review under Maine's
regulatory system an applicant should consult with the State Plan-
ning Office and the Department of Environmental Protection or the
Land Use Regulation Commission for technical information gathered
throughthe years of the planning and regulatory process. The
State Planning Office through the 305 planning programs has de-
veloped an extensive mapping system at a scale of 1:48,000 for the
entire coast. These maps are available at the State Planning Office..
Of particular use to developers are the land use maps and the fa-
vorability maps. The favorability for development map series groups
different soils and slopes into three catagories and rates their fa-
vorability for accommodating large residential developments with
sewers or with septic tanks, and commercial, light industrial de-
velopments. The maps may be used when searching for suitable large
development sites or to identify areas most likely to come under
development pressure because of soil and slope favorability. Fur-
ther detailed studies.are obviously required before specific site
proposals can be made. The coastal land use inventory displays a
large array of information, including government lands, conservation
lands and easements, and infrastructure.

The Department of Environmental Protection and the LURC can also
offer invaluable assistance to applicants considering the suitability
of sites. The application hearing records, findings, and permit con-
ditions from previous such proposals will help the applicant prepare
his application. Proposals which have extensive hearing records in-
clude an oil storage facility on Long Island, King Resources in 1969,
a refinery in South Portland, Maine Clean Fuels in 1969, the Pittston
oil refinery proposal in Eastport in 1973, and other proposals for
expansion such as is now in process of the Cousins Island Power Plant,
1972.

The Land Use Regulation Commission should be also consulted
for their extensive Comprehensive Plan which outlines policies for
development and has zoning maps showing areas suitable for develop-
ment.

Staff in all of these agencies stand ready to aid all persons
in providing necessary information and guiding the preparation of
applications.

2.2. REGULATORY PROCEDURES

This section will describe the regulatory procedures prescribed
by Maine statutes for the siting of energy-related facilities.

The regulatory pathway for siting of energy facilities which
are utilities differ from energy facilities which are not, in that:
the utilities must pass through a Public Utilities Commission Perr).At
Procedure.

2.2.1 Energy-related utility

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Board of Environ-
mental Protection (BEP) are the two principal regulatory State agen-
cies in any utility siting decision in Maine.

Public Utilities Commission Approval

The initial step in the siting of power plants, transmission
lines, and gas pipelines is to establish the need for additional
facilities. The applicant must apply to the PUC for a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity to build any power generating
facilities of more than 1,000 kilowatts, or transmission lines
carrying 100 kilovolts or more, and gas pipelines (35 M.R.S.A.
Sec. 13-A). If a gas company obtains a Certificate of Convenience
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it need not obtain
one from the PUC.

The PUC will schedule a public hearing after receiving the
application. Any person, firm, or corporation, including trans-
portation industry organizations, associations, or conferences,
have the right to intervene in a PUC hearing if they show direct
and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceeding,
and their participation does not unduly broaden the issues (Rules.
of Practice and Procedure before the Public Utilities Commission
of Maine, Rule 16). During the hearing, the Office of Energy Re-
sources may provide input on forecasting of long term electrical
demand and growth rates, alternative energy sources, and the effects
of conservation measures. The Commission will make its final de--
cision based on testimony presented at the hearing as well as its,
own findings. The PUC must. also approve long term financing of any
public utility project (35 M.R.S.A. Sec. 17).

Assuming the PUC has approved the utility proposal, the appli-
cant must next seek approval for the proposed site. The State and
municipal agencies involved in this step of the process will depend
on the location of the proposed site as described below.

Approval for Sites in the Unorganized Territories

In the unorganized territories of which the coastal area is
only 5%, the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) has jurisdiction
over zoning and land use (12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 681-689). Normally the
LURC will process the application in accordance with its statures,
comprehensive plan, and procedures zoning standards promulgated pur-
suant to its statute. However, a public utility may be completely
or partially exempt from LURC regulation if the PUC decides it is
in the public welfare or convenience; in which case, LURC may only
impose terms or conditions on the utility. LURC may also waive the
requirement for a hearing if the proposal has received approval un-
der the Site Location of Development Law administered by BEP.

Local Approval for Sites in the Organized Territories

Local zoning laws, including shoreland zoning under the Shore-
land Zoning Act (12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 4811-4814), apply to the organized
territories. If a desired site is unavailable because of zoning res-
trictions, the utility may seek a variance from the municipality in-
volved. If a variance is denied, the utility may apply to the PUC*
for exemption from local zoning laws, including shoreland zoning (30
M.R.S.A. Sec. 4962).

Approval by State Agencies with Responsibility for Protecting the
Environment

When a site is selected that meets the approval of the municipality
or LURC, if in unorganized territory, the utility must comply with a
number of environmental laws administered principally by the Board of
Environmental Protection.

The Department of Environmental Protection coordinates and assists
in the issuance of all environmental permits issued by agencies of the
State within the organized municipalities. Within the unorganized terri-
tories this function is carried out by the Land Use Regulation Commission.
Both agencies have established procedures for ensuring the following: 1)
availability to the public of necessary information concerning such en-
vironmental permits, 2) provision of assistance to applicants in obtain-
ing permits from other State agencies, 3) coordination of application pro-
cedures, time schedules, and application forms to reduce delay and dupli-
cation of effort by the applicant and issuing agencies. An application
will not be considered unless an applicant has demonstrated right, title
or interest to the property under consideration. These procedures are
contained in DEP Regulations for the Processing of Applications (Sections
1.1-1.17) and LURC Rules of Practice (Sections 4.01-4.12).

The developer must obtain from the Board of Environmental Pro-
tection (the decision-making authority of the Department of Environ-
mental Protection) BEP permits and approval of its proposed facility.
The BEP will automatically schedule public hearings on any applica.-
tion deemed by the BEP to be of significant public interest. Condi-
tions are specified in DEP Special Regulations for Hearings on Appli-
cations of Significant Public Interest (Sections 30.1-30.26), Appen-
dix A. Although a separate public hearing may be scheduled to deter-
mine compliance with each law under BEP's jurisdiction, the normal
procedure is to schedule one set of hearings that covers all the laws
involved. The latter action streamlines the procedure and appears to
meet with the approval of both BEP and developers.

The most comprehensive law administered by BEP is the Site Loca-
tion of Development Act (38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 481-489) since it covers all
developments over 20 acres. This Act requires the applicant to demon-
strate that the proposal will meet air and water pollution standards,
dispose of waste properly, be built on suitable soil types, not dis-
rupt traffic flow, or adversely affect the environment. Other acts
administered by BEP are directed at protecting specific natural re-
sources. The Protection and Improvement of Air Act (38 M.R.S.A. Sec.
581-608) requires the licensing of air emissions from the proposed. fa-
cility. Liquid waste effluents from any facility, including thermal
pollutants, must be licensed under the Protection and Improvement of
Waters Act (38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 361A-452). If the proposed facility re-
quires an oil terminal capable of storing more than 500 barrels of' oil,
a license will be required under the Oil*Discharge Prevention and Pollu-
tion Control Act (38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 541-560). If the proposed facility
will result in any alteration of coastal wetlands, great ponds, rivers,
streams or brooks permits will be required under the corresponding acts
(38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 471-478, 386-396; 12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 2206-2212 respec-
tively). All these environmental laws are administered by BEP except
the Alteration of Rivers, Streams and Brooks Act, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. In
cases where this act applies joint hearings may be held with BEP, but
the final decision rests with the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and
Wildlife.

During the hearing process, testimony is received from intervenors,
the public, and representatives of federal, state, municipal or other
governmental agencies (DEP, Special Regulations for Hearings on Appli-
cations of Significant Public Interest (Sections 30.1-30.26)), Appen-
dix A. The State Planning Office and the Department of Marine Resources
are a major source of advisory input for any coastal development.
Final approval by BEP of all the applicant's permits and licenses
will be granted only after it has been determined by the Board that the_
proposal will not substantially harm or alter the natural resources pro
tected by the appropriate laws.

Transmission lines (gas and electric) crossing public lots, sub-
merged land, and intertidal land require approval from the Director of
the Bureau of Public Lands (BPL). At his discretion, the Director may

hold a separate hearing or act as an intervenor at a BEP hearing in
any proposal to site utility transmission lines on public lands.
Approval by BPL is normally granted at approximately the same time
BEP approves a proposal. These two agencies are the final step of
the utility siting process in Maine.

Joint Hearings with the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP)
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The BEP and EPA may hold joint hearings on air and water emission
licenses, where both Federal and State laws have jurisdiction. If
joint hearings are to be held, it is necessary for the BEP to initiate
them with the EPA entering after the process has begun since the BEP
must schedule hearings within 30 days after receipt of an application
for a new development, whereas, the EPA must announce its intention to
hold hearings within 30 days. The EPA usually follows BEP's hearing
regulations.

2.2.2 Energy facilities which are not utilities

Energy facilities which are not utilities include oil terminals
and refineries, petroleum pipelines, liquid natural gas (LNG) termi-
nals, LNG regasification facilities and pipelines, strategic petroleum
reserves/regional storage, coal storage and handling yards, and OCS
platform construction-yards.

Siting of these types of facilities is very similar to the utility
siting process already described except that the PUC is removed from the
State decision making process. Consequently, this category of energy
facilities cannot be granted the power of eminent domain and cannot be
exempted from local zoning or LURC regulation. A developer may seek a
variance for a proposal if it does not conform to local zoning.

2.3 STATUTES WITH REGULATORY AUTHORITY

2.3.1 Public Utilities and Carriers Law
35 M.R.S.A. Sec. I et seq.

1. Purpose

The law establishes the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
and enables it to regulate and license all public utilities
within the State, including electric generating plants, elec-
tric transmission lines, gas plants, and natural gas pipelines.

2. Administrating Agency

The provisions of the law are administered by the PUC,
which consists of 3 members appointed by the Governor. One
member designated by the Governor serves as Chairman (Sec. 1).
The regulations of the PUC must be consistent with the Federal
Natural Gas Act (Sec. 2539).

3. Planning and Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

The Commission has authority to regulate new energy fa-
cilities in the following ways:

a. Any electric utilities or gas companies within the
State proposing to build an electric power plant of
more than 1,000 kilowatts, transmission lines carry-
ing 100 kilovolts or more, or natural gas pipelines,
must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity from the PUC. A public hearing must be
held before a decision is made to issue a certificate
(Sec. 13-A).

b. Electric power companies have the power of eminent
domain for locating transmission lines of 5,000 volts
or more (Sec. 2306). Gas companies also have the
power of eminent domain for locating pipelines if a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity has
been granted under the Federal Natural Gas Act or if
authorized by the PUC. The power of eminent domain
does not extend to the taking of homes (Sec. 2306,
2535).

C. The PUC must consider alternative routes when deter-
mining if a proposed transmission route is the proper
location. It must also take into consideration all
factors affecting the public interest, including en-
vironmental factors, safety, quality of service, and
cost. (Re Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. (1974) Me., 314
A.2d 800.)

d. A natural gas pipeline company, which has obtained a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity under
the Federal Natural Gas Act for an interstate pipeline
or approval from the PUC for an intrastate pipeline,
is authorized to proceed in its application process
for obtaining all necessary State permits with regard
to location, construction, completion and operation.
This section exempts a company from obtaining right,
title or interest prior to application for State ap-
proval. A natural gas company that has not obtained
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or
approval from the PUC, must file a bond not to exceed
$50,000 with the Department of Environmental Protec-
tion to pay for the cost of processing the application
in the event the applicant is denied a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (Sec. 2545).

4. Shared Powers with Other Intrastate Agencies

The Board of Environmental Protection must also approve any
transmission lines carrying 100 kilovolts or more, electric power
plants of more than 1,000 kilowatts, and gas pipelines ('38 M.R.S.A.
Sec. 484) and unless specifically exempted by the Land Use Regula-
tion Commission. Even if exempted, the LURC can impose conditions
'I r) I

on new facilities to make them consistent with the provisions
of 12 M.R.S.A. Chap. 206-A.

The Director of the Bureau of Public Lands (BPL) and the
PUC both have jurisdiction over pipelines on submerged and in-
tertidal lands owned by the State. The BPL must approve the
site (12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 514-A). Companies constructing pipe-
lines or electric transmission lines across roadways must
first obtain a permit from the municipality or the Maine De-
partment of Transportation, depending on who has jurisdiction
(Sec. 2346-2347).

2.3.2 Shoreland Zoning Act
12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 4811-4814

1. Purpose

This Act requires the zoning of land within 250 feet of
the normal high water mark of any pond, river or salt water
body. The purpose of the zoning is to maintain " ....safe
and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution;
protect spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and wildlife
habitat; control building sites, placement of structures and
land uses; and conserve shore cover, visual as well as actual
points of access to inland and coastal waters and natural beauty"
(Sec. 4811). Further details are described in the FEIS, Maine
Coastal Program Section 7.

2. Administering Agency

The State Planning Office under the guidance of the Board
of Environmental Protection (BEP) and the Land Use Regulation
Commission (LURC) insures that all municipalities have adopted
State approved shoreland zoning. Actual administration of the
zoning standards is the responsibility of municipalities.

3. Enforcement Powe@rs: Authority to Act

The Department of Environmental Protection and the Land
Use Regulation Commission may adopt a shoreland zoning ordi-
nance for a municipality if it failed to adopt its own ordi-
nance by July 1, 1974, or if the existing ordinance is found
to be inadequate by BEP and LURC. If a municipality fails to
enforce shoreland zoning laws, the Attorney General may seek
a court order from the Superior Court directing municipal
officials to enforce the ordinance.

2.3.3 Planning and Zoning
30 [email protected]. Sec. 4961-4964

1. Purpose

The Act sets forth State standards for the establishment
of local municipal zoning ordinances.

2. Administering Agency

Local municipalities may adopt zoning ordinances. If
this occurs, a board of appeals must be established (Sec.
4963).

3. Planning or Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

In adopting a zoning ordinance under the home rule power
granted by the Constitution, Article VIII-A and Chapter 201-A,
specifically Section 1917, municipalities are subject to the
following conditions:

a. the ordinance must be consistent with a comprehensive
plan adopted by its legislative body;

b. a zoning map must be part of the ordinance;

c. land to be used by a public service corporation is
exempt or partially exempt from local zoning if the
Public Utilities Commission decides the exemption is
necessary for public welfare and convenience;

d. county and municipal governments must abide by 'Local
zoning ordinances;

e.. zoning ordinances are advisory with respect to the
State; and
f. a person petitioning for rezoning of an area for --- the
purpose of development must post a bond of 25% of the
estimated cost of development (Sec. 4962).

2.3.4 Land Use Regulation
12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 681-689

1. Purpose
The Act regulates the land use activities in the unorganized
territories of the State, including 5 per cent of the coastal
area. Its objective is "...to extend principles of sound plan-
ning, zoning and subdivision control to the unorganized and de-
organized townships of the State" (Sec. 681).

2. Administering Agency
The provisions of the Act are administered by the lvtaine
Land Use Regulation Commission within the Department of Conser-
vation. The Commission consists of seven public members appoint-
ed by the Governor (Sec. 683). A Director administers commission
activities (Sec. 685).

3. Plannin& or Enfurcement Powers: Authority to Act

Land use is regulated by zoning standards and site cri-
teria.

A permit is required from LURC for any new construction
in the unorganized territories (Sec. 685-B(l)), which may be
granted if the use is consistent with LURC standards and the
developer demonstrates a strategy for meeting the following
criteria:

a. Provision has been made to comply with the State's
environmental laws;

b. Provision has been made to prevent disruption of
traffic;

c. Provision has been made for fitting the proposal
harmoniously into the existing natural environment;

d. Use of topography, soils and subsoils meet State
standards; and

e. If the proposal is for a structure on a lot in a
subdivision, the subdivision must have been approved
by the Commission (Sec. 685-B(4)).

More details on the LURC may be found in the FEIS, Maine
Coastal Program Section 7 and Appendix F.

4. Shared Powers with Other Intrastate Agencies

The Commission may waive the requirement of a hearing if
the proposal has already received approval by the Board of En-
vironmental Protection under the Site Location of Development
Law 38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 481-488. Commission approval of a pro-
posal is considered prima facie evidence that it meets the re-
quirements of the Site Location of Development Law, Alteration
of Coastal Wetlands Law 38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 471-478, Great Ponds
Law 38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 422, and the Stream Alteration Law 38
M.R.S.A. Sec. 2206-2212.

If the Public Utilities Commission approves a public ser-
vice corporation proposal, following a public hearing, LURC
can only impose conditions on it, not prohibit it (Sec. 685-B
(1)).

2.3.5 Site Location of Development Act
38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 481-489

1. Purpose

Many developments because of their size and type are capa-
ble of causing irreparable damage to the people and the environ-
ment if they are sited improperly. This Act provides a flexible

means by which the State can assess development proposals
.and control the location of developments that substantially
affect the environment by locating them in a manner which
will have minimal adverse impact on the environment, thereby
protecting the economic and social well-being of the citizens
(Sec. 481).

2. Administering,Agen

The Act is administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), and its decision making authority, the Board
of Environmental Protection. The Board, which has permit grant-
ing authority for all laws within DEP's jurisdiction, consists
of the Commissioner and 10 members appointed by the Governor
based on their broad interest and experience with laws adminis-
tered by DEP.

3. Planning,,or Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

Any person planning a development must notify the Board
and provide them information required to assess the proposal
(Sec. 483). The application form, regulations, and more de-
tailed description of the Site Law are found in the FEIS
Maine Coastal Program Section 7.7 and Appendix F. The Board
may schedule a public hearing within 30 days after receipt of
a proposal (Sec. 483). At the hearing the Board must solicit
and receive testimony regarding the development's effect on
the environment, public health, safety or general welfare. They
may also receive testimony regarding the economic effect of the
proposed development (Sec. 484). A developer can propose alter-
native sites for separate review under the Site Location Act and
witnesses may suggest alternative sites at public hearings, help-
ing to insure that State, national and local interests are ade-
quately considered.

The Board may approve a proposal if it finds the developer
has met the following conditions:

a. has the financial capacity and technical abilit- to
Y
meet air and water pollution standards, and will be
able to dispose of solid waste properly, control
noxious odors, and obtain adequate potable water;

b. the development will not cause disruption of traffic
flows;

C. the development will fit harmoniously into the natural
environment and will adversely affect existing uses,
scenic character, or natural resources in the area; and

d. the development will be built on suitable soil types
(Sec. 484).

A permit may be obtained prior to land acquisition for
transmission lines carrying 100 kilovolts or more and gas
pipelines. An applicant proposing to build a transmission
line or pipeline must notify all the owners whose property
lies in the path of the proposed route before applying to
the Board for approval. The Board may consider alternatives
to the proposed route and character of the transmission line
or pipeline, taking into consideration its impact on the en-
vironment, cost, and the risks to public health and safety
(Sec. 484).

At hearings held on a proposed development, the burden
of proof is on the developer to demonstrate that all of the
criteria for approval have been met and that the public's
health, safety and general welfare will be protected. When
granting permission for a new development, the Board may im-
pose terms and conditions to protect and preserve the environ-
ment and the public health, safety and general welfare (Sec.
484).

Criminal and civil penalties for violations are up to
$25,000 and $10,000, respectively, for each day of violation
(Sec. 349).

4. Shared Powers with Other Intrastate Agencies

Electric generating facilities of more than 1,000 kilo-
watts and transmission lines carrying 125 kilovolts, or more
must obtain approval under this Act and the Public Convenience
and Necessity Law 35 M.R.S.A. Sec. 13-A.

The Board may cooperate with other agencies of this State
and other states as well as the Federal government in carrying
out the provisions of laws within its jurisdiction (Sec. 366).
Other State agencies are often consulted to determine if cri-
teria are met.

2.3.6 Protection and Improvement of Air
38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 581-608

l.. Purpose

The purpose of this Act is to control air pollution for
the protection of human health, property, and plant and ani-
mal life (Sec.,581).

2. Administering Agency

The Act is administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection with permit granting authority vested in the Board
of Environmental Protection.

3. Planning and Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

The Board has established five air quality regions in
the State for the purposes of conducting air quality studies,
and establishing air quality and emission standards (Sec. 583).
Ambient air quality standards for each of the five regions are
designed to preserve or enhance the air quality (Sec. 584).
Emission standards established by the Board are designed to
maintain ambient air quality (Sec. 585).

A variance may be granted from ambient air quality stan-
dards or emission standards if the emissions do not:

a. endanger human health or safety;

b. compliance would produce a serious hardship; and

C. no adequate means of controlling the pollution is
available (Sec. 587).

The Board may require any air contamination source to be
licensed (Sec. 590). Employees of the Department of Environ-
mental Protection are permitted to make on-site inspections to
insure compliance with State air quality laws. Sources emit-
ting more than 100 tons per year of any pollutant must submit
a standby emergency plan to the Department (DEP Emission Li-
cense Regulation 100.8.4).

The Board may order a hearing within 30 days after receipt
of an application for an air emission license. An applicant may
also request a hearing within 10 days after denial of a license.
A hearing must be held in the municipality where the proposed
emission will occur at which time the Board will receive testi-
mony'regarding the nature of the proposed emissions, their effect
on ambient air quality in the region, the availability and effec-
tiveness of pollution control equipment, and the cost of purchas-
ing and installing that equipment (Sec. 590).

. The Attorney General enforces the provisions of the law
(Sec. 348). Noncompliance can result in criminal and civil fines
of $25,000 and $10,000, respectively, for each day of violation.

2.3.7 Protection and Improvement of Waters
38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 361-A-452

1. Purpose

The purpose of the Act is to control, abate, and prevent
pollution in all inland and tidal waters. Waste discharges in-to
all surface waters of the State are controlled by provisions of
the Act.

2. Administering Agency

The Act is administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection with permit granting authority vested in the Board of
Environmental Protection.

3. Planning and Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

Standards of classification have been established for
assessing water quality in the State. Inland fresh waters,
except great ponds, and tidal waters have five classifications.
Great ponds have two classifications (Sec. 363-364).

A license must be obtained from the Board before any waste
discharges are permitted. Both private and public sources are
regulated by the law. The Board may require a public hearing
prior to issuing a discharge license (Sec. 414(6),-345). The
following conditions must be met before a license is issued:

a. the discharge either alone or in combination with
others will not lower water quality below its pre-
sent classification;

b. the discharge receives the best practicable treat-
ment based on existing technology, available alter-
natives, and the economic feasibility of alternat*ives;
and

cl. the discharge into waters of higher quality than the
assigned classification, acting either alone or in
combination with others, will not lower the existing
quality unless that lowering is the result of necessary
economic and social development (Sec. 414-A).

Discharge of forest products refuse, toxic or hazardous
substances, radiological, chemical or biological warfare agents,
high level radioactive wastes, and waste from watercraft is pro-
hibited (Sec. 417, 420, 423).

The BEP and Attorney General can make on-site inspections
to insure compliance with the Act (Sec. 414(3)). Criminal and
civil penalties for violations are up to $25,000 and $10,000,
respectively, for each day of violation (Sec. 349).

2.3.8 Oil Discharge Prevention and Pollution Control
j_8_@f._R.S.A. Sec. 541-560

1. Purpose

The purpose of the Act is to prevent oil spills, during
transfer and storage between vessels and vessels and onshore
facilities in order to preserve the recreational and fishing
interests of the coast (Sec. 541).

2. Administering Agency

The Act is administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection with permit granting authority vested in the Board
of Environmental Protection.

3. Planning'and Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

Discharge of oil into any coastal waters, tidal flats, lands
adjacent to the coast, and streams or rivers flowing to the coast
is prohibited. However, the Board may license a discharge if it
receives the best available treatment, does not degrade E!XiSting
water quality or violate the classification of the receiving waters,
and does not create a visible sheen on the water (Sec. 543). A
license must be obtained to operate an oil terminal facility (ca-
pable of storing more than 500 barrels) (Sec. 542,545). The Act
applies to oil discharges up to 12 miles from the coast (Sec. 544).
The Board may conduct public hearings in the administration of
this act (Sec. 345,347). The Board has the authority to regulate
operation of facilities and vessels, clean-up, safety and inspec-
tion methods (Sec. 546). No penalties are levied against those
causing accidental discharges if they are promptly reported and
cleaned up (Sec. 550).

A Maine Coastal Protection Fund is maintained by the State
with a tax of '-2r,, per barrel of oil transferred by the licensed
terminal operators. Currently, the fund is maintained at $4,0100,000,
but will be increased to $6,000,000 after July 1, 1978. The fund
is used to pay for administrative expenses, removal of oil pol-
lutants, and 3rd party damages (Sec. 551).

The State does not need to prove that a prohibited discharge
took place due to negligence in order to establish liability for
an oil spill (Sec. 552). A vessel believed to be responsible for
an oil spill may be detained until any fine or penalty due has
been repaid (Sec. 552-A).

A separate section of the Act regulates vessels at anchorage
that are carrying or are capable of carrying oil if they are not
waiting for a scheduled loading or unloading. The Board may adopt
regulations concerning the following areas:

a. location, duration and type of anchorage;

b. type and capacity of vessels permitted at anchorage;

C. systems and precautions necessary for safety on. a
vessel;

d. crew size and training;

e. contingency plans in case of accident, fire, storm or
unforseen acts; and

f. protection of the natural environment, aesthetic
and recreational uses of the coast, and fishing.

A vessel at anchorage under the previously listed condi-
tions must obtain a license from the Board and pay a fee of
per deadweight ton for each 30 days at anchorage (Sec. 560).

Criminal and civil penalties for violations are up to
$25,000 and $10,000, respectively, for each day of violation
(Sec. 349).

4. Shared Powers with Other Intrastate Agencies

The Governor can declare an emergency if a catastrophic
oil spill occurs or appears imminent (Sec. 547).

Municipalities may pass ordinances regulating oil dis-
charge and transfer provided they do not conflict with this
Act (Sec. 556).

2.3.9 Alteration of Coastal Wetlands
38 M-R-S.A. Sec. 471-478

1. Purpose

The purpose of the Act is to prevent any proposed activity
such as dredging, draining, or construction on any tidal or sub-
tidal lands, including submerged lands, from unreasonably inter-
fering with recreation and navigation, cause unreasonable soil
erosion, unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of any
waters, unreasonably harm wildlife or freshwater, estuarine or
marine fisheries, or lower the quality of any waters. If these
conditions are met, a permit will be granted for the proposed
activity (Sec. 474).

2. Administering-Agency

The Act is administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection with permit granting authority vested in the Board
of Environmental Protection.

3. Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

Within 30 days after an applicant submits a form (Appen-
dix B) for a wetlands permit, the Board may call a public hear-
ing (Sec. 474).

The Board may deny a permit if information indicates con-
ditions will not be met (Sec. 474) or impose conditions on any
permit granted (Sec. 471). It may also grant exemptions for
some activities. Violation of the Coastal Wetlands Act is a
Class E crime (Sec. 349), punishable by $500 and $5,000 fines
for individuals and corporations, respectively, and imprison-
ment of up to 6 months (17 M.R.S.A. Sec. 1301, 1252). More
specific information on this Act is found in Section 7.3 of
FEIS, Maine's Coastal Program.

4. Shared'Powers with Other Intrastate Agencies

Other agencies may review permit applications, including
the Department of Marine Resources and the Department of Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife, and the State Planning Office.

The Board of Environmental Protection has the power to trans-
fer authority to grant permits to a local municipality provided
it has met the following provisions:

a. established a planning board;

b. adopted a shoreland zoning ordinance approved by the
Board and the Land Use Regulation Commission;

c. made a provision for prompt notice to the Board and
the public upon receipt of an application and written
notification to the applicant and the Board of the
issuance or denial of a permit; and

d. uses an application form provided by the Board.

If the Board believes that a municipality has failed to
meet the requirements, it may revoke the municipality's autho-
rity to grant permits following a public hearing (Sec. 473).
So far the municipalities of Harrington and Southport have
been granted the authority to administer the Wetland Act.

2.3.10 Great Ponds Alteration
38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 386-396

1. Purpose

To protect and enhance the environment of great ponds by
facilitating research, developing programs, establishing en-
vironmental standards and regulating alterations (Sec. _386).
A great pond is any body of freshwater having a surface area
greater than 10 acres in its natural state, or 30 acres if
artifically created and owned by 2 or more persons (Sec., 392).

2. Administering Agency

.The Act is administered by the Department of Environmental
Protection with permit granting authority vested in the Board
of Environmental Protection.

3. Planning and Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

The Board may classify great ponds and establish guidelines
for waste disposal systems to prevent environmental damage to
great ponds.

The following activities are prohibited in great ponds with-

out first obtaining a permit from the Board of Environmental
Protection:

a. dredging or removing materials;

b. constructing or repairing structures;

C. depositing dredged spoil or fill in or adjacent to
great ponds such that it may be washed into the pond;
and

d. bulldozing or scraping land adjacent to great ponds
such that it may be washed into the pond (Sec. 391).

The Board may issue a permit for a proposed activity if
it will not unreasonably:

a. interfere with aesthetic, recreational, naviga-
tional or scenic uses;

b. harm the environment of the great pond or any stream
flowing into or out of the pond;

c. cause soil erosion;

d. harm aquatic or wildlife habitat-,

e. interfere with the flow of any water; or

f. lower water quality (Sec. 393).

Violation of the Great Ponds Act is a Class E crime (Sec.
349), punishable by $500 and $5,000 fines for individuals and
corporations respectively, and imprisonment up to 6 months
(17-A M.R.S.A. Sec. 1301, 1252).

2.3.11 Alteration of Rivers, Streams and Brooks
12 M.R,.S.A. Sec. 2206-2212

1. Purpose

The purpose of the Act is to prevent environmental damage
to rivers, streams, and brooks from dredging, filling and con-
struction on or over waterways by regulating those activities
(Sec. 2206) which may affect the stream.

2. Administering Agency

The Act is administered by the Department of Inland Fish-
eries and Wildlife, which has the authority to grant permits
through the Commissioner of that agency.

3. Enforcement Powers: Authorily__Lo Act

An applicant for a permit must demonstrate to the Com-
missioner that the proposed activity will not cause unreason-
able harm to any river, stream or brook before a permit will
be granted. If the waterway is used as a public water su?ply,
the applicant must also notify the water company or water
district (Sec. 2207). The Commissioner may hold hearings in
the administration of this act (Sec. 2209).

An applicant may appeal an adverse decision (Sec. 2208).

Persons engaging in construction activities on rivers,
streams or brooks without a permit are subject to fines of up
to $200 a day for each day of violation (Sec. 2210). The
Attorney General can begin proceedings to halt further vio-
lations and restore the area to its former condition (Sec. 2211).

2.3.12 Mining and Minerals
12 M.R.'@_.A._Sec. 541-548

1. Purpose

Establishes the Maine Geological Survey within the Depart-
ment of Conservation to "...gather, analyze, interpret, pub-
lish and disseminate information relating to the geologic fea-
tures of the State, and to administer mineral exploration and
development activities on state-owned lands" (Sec. 541).

2. Administering Agency

The State Geologist serves as the Director of the Maine
Geological Survey and is responsible for carrying out its func-
tions, including the issuance of permits and promulgating rules
and regulations within its jurisdiction (Sec. 542, 543, _547).

3. Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

The following powers of the survey relate to energy pro-
duction:

a. "The survey may review the geologic aspects of en-
vironmental and site development applications under
consideration by state and federal regulatory agen-
cies" (Sec. 542).

b. The director has the power to regulate the explora-
tion and mining of hydrocarbons on private and State
owned land. On State lands these powers include spe-
cifying the size of the area explored, permit fees,
and length of permits (Sec. 547).

2.3.13 Public Lands Laws
12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 514-A, 552-553

1. Purpose

Establishes the Bureau of Public Lands withi n the De-
partment of Conservation to carry out the State's role of
public lands planning and management. This role must follow
principles of multiple land use to produce a sustained yield
of products and services, while adhering to prudent and fair
business practices, as well as the principles of sound plan-
ning (Sec. 551).

2. Administering Agency

The duties of the Bureau of Public Lands are the respon-
sibility of the Director, which functions within the Depart-
ment of Conservation (Sec. 551, 553).

3. Enforcement of Powers: Authority to Act

The following powers of the Bureau of Public Lands relate
to the location of energy facilities on public lands:

a. The Director may lease under terms and conditions he
deems reasonable, for up to 30 years, the right to
dredge, fill or erect permanent causeways, bridges,
marinas, wharves, docks or other permanent structures
on lands, including submerged and intertidal lands
*owned by the State. The Director shall consult with
the Commissioners of Conservation, Marine Resources,
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and other agencies he
may deem appropriate in developing and implementing
terms, conditions and consideration for conveyances
under this section. He may also make proprietary
conveyances under this section solely on the basis of
the issuance of environmental or regulatory permits
by other State agencies (Sec. 514-A).

2.4 STATUTES WITH ADVISORY AUTHORITY

The following statutes are not regulatory, and their administra-
tion does not require a permit, however, they provide advice to
agencies with regulatory responsibilities.

2.4.1 Maine State Energy Resources Act
5 M.R.S.A. ec. 5001-5009

1. Purpose

The Act provides for long-range planning and management of
qnergy sources in the State, and encourages the development of
new sources of energy in Maine. The Act is specifically aimed
at meeting the energy needs of Maine. Major consideration must
be given to conservation of natural resources and protection of
the environment (Sec. 5002).

2. Administering Agency

The Office of Energy Resources (OER) within the Executive

Department carries out the provisions of the Act. The Office
is directly responsible to the Governor (Sec. 5003).

3. Planning and Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

The Director of OER must provide information, when re-
quested, to public and private groups in the field of energy.
He is empowered to apply to Superior Court for a subpoena to
obtain witnesses and evidence needed to carry out energy re-
lated duties (Sec. 5004). The office has the responsibility
to:

a. Formulate a comprehensive State energy resources
plan and a State energy policy;

b. Coordinate State energy programs; and

C. Administer federal energy programs within Maine
(Sec. 5004-5005).

The development of new energy sources must take into con-
sideration the wise use and conservation of the State's natural
resources, protection of the environment, orderly development of
industry (Sec. 5002).

4. Administrative Process.

The office handles all energy matters within the State
which are not the specific responsibility of another State agency
under federal or State law. A State Energy Resources Advisory
Board, appointed by the Governor, advises the Office of Energy
Resources.

2.4.2 Act -for a State Register of Critical Areas
5 M.R.S.A. Sec. 3310-3314

1. Purpose

The Act creates an official "Register of Critical Areas"
for listing of areas ..."of unusual natural, scenic, scientific
or historical significance." It is the policy of the State to
encourage the preservation of critical areas (Sec. 3311).

2. AdministeripB Agency

A Critical Areas Advisory Board appointed by the Governor
advises the State Planning Office (SPO) in the maintenance of
a Register of Critical Areas (Sec. 3313).

3. Enforcement Powers: Authority to Act

Critical areas are identified by studies conducted 'by the
State Planning Office. Areas are included in a registry. Land-
owners are notified 60 days prior to any action by the Critical
Areas Board. The SPO may recommend that the appropriate State
or private agencies take action to protect critical areas. The
recommendations of SPO are advisory only.

SUMMARY

MAINE STATUTES FOR ASSESSING SITE SUITABILITY
Administering Resource
Statute Agency Protected

Shoreland Zoning Act State Planning Office
(12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 4811-4814) and Municipalities Land/Water

Planning and Zoning Act Municipalities Land/Water
(30 M.R.S.A. Sec. 4961-4964)

Land Use Regulation Laws Land Use Regulation Land/Water
(12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 681-689) Commission

Site Location of Development Act *BEP/DEP Land/Water/Air
(38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 481-489)

Protection and Improvement of Air BEP/DEP Air
(38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 581-608)

Protection and Improvement of BEP/DEP Water
Waters
(38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 361-A-452)

Alteration of Coastal Wetlands BEP/DEP Land/Water
(38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 471-478)

Great Ponds Alteration BEP/DEP Land/Water
(38 M.R.S.A. Sec. 386-396)

Alteration of Rivers, Streams Department of Inland Land/Water
and Brooks Fisheries and Wildlife
(12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 2206-2212)

Mining and Minerals Act Maine Geological Survey Land
(12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 541-548)

Public Lands Laws Bureau of Public Lands Land
(12 M.R.S.A. Sec. 514-A, 552-553)

Critical Areas Act State Planning Office Unique Natural
(5 M.R.S.A. Sec. 3310-3314) Areas
(Advisory Only)

*Board of Environment al Protection/Department of Environmental Protection

2.5 MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT

Maine's Coastal Program has provided for coordination between the
State Planning Office and the State agencies responsible for adminis-
tering the 11 core laws through the Memoranda of Agreement in Appendix
Ia of the Coastal Program Document in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement issued in April 1978. "These memos establish cooperative
procedures and spell out understandings between the Department of En-
vironmental Protection and the Land Use Regulation Commission and the
State Planning Office. They also clarify the State Planning Office's
administrative duties in implementing the Program and explain State
agency Federal Consistency responsibilities."

Two additional Memorandums of Agreement have been included in this
section to assure complete coordination in the siting of energy facili-
ties. These two memos establish cooperative procedures and spell out
understandings between the Public Utilities Commission and the Office
of Energy Resources.

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

Under the Terms of this Agreement between the:

Public Utilities Commission, hereafter referred to as the "P.U.C.," and the

Maine State Planning Office, a staff agency within the Executive Department,
hereafter referred to as the "S.P.O."

it is hereby recognized that in order to strengthen the roles that
both agencies play in helping achieve a balance between conserva-
tion and development, it is in the best interests of the people for
the P.U.C. and the S.P.O. to cooperate and coordinate those activi-
ties that further the goal. Towards this end, (and in furtherance
of 35 M.R.S.A. Sec. 13-A), the

P.U.C. agrees to submit to the S.P.O. (Resource Planning Division)
for their review, information, and comment all those plans, reports
and research documents that, in its judgement, are significant to
the management of activities in the coastal area.

By this agreement S.P.O. agrees to provide the following information
and services to the P.U.C. and persons or corporations residing, or
planning business ventures in Maine's coastal area:

- copies of relevant Maine Coastal Inventory resource maps,
- land capability maps,
- copies of S.P.O. planning, or economic reports that have
relevance to development proposals;
- advice on favorable locations or sites for specific types
of residential, commercial, or industrial enterprises; and
- information from the MIDAS computer inventory.

P.U.C. agrees to refer persons contemplating utility development activi-
ties in the coastal area to the S.P.O. for the above advice. The above
information will be used by the P.U.C. in its regulatory capacity of
assessing the need for new energy facilities, which are utilities.

Furthermore, the P.U.C. recognizes that there are facilities and resources that
are in the national interest and is in agreement with the statements relating
thereto in the Appendix (El) of Maine's Coastal Program.

Signed at Augusta, Maine, this

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION STATE PLANNING OFFICE

Ralph Gelder, Commissioner Allen G. Pease, Director

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

Under the terms of this Agreement between the:

Maine Office of Energy Resources, an agency within the Maine Executive Depart-
ment, hereafter referred to as the "O.E.R.," and the

Maine State Planning Office, a staff agency within the same Executive Depart-
ment, hereafter referred to as the "S.P.O."

it is hereby recognized that in order to strengthen the roles that
both agencies play in helping achieve a balance between conserva-
tion and development, it is in the best interests of the people of
Maine for the O.E.R. and the S.P.O. to cooperate and coordinate
those activities that further the goal. Towards this end, (and in
furtherance of 5 M.R.S.A. Sec. 5002), the

O.E.R. agrees to submit to the S.P.O. (Resource Planning Division) for
their review, information, and comment all those plans, reports, and
research documents that, in its judgement, are significant to the
management of activities in the coastal area.

By this agreement S.P.O. agrees to provide the following information
and services to the O.E.R. and persons or corporations residing, or
planning business ventures in Maine's coastal area:

O.E.R. agrees to refer persons contemplating energy facility develop-
ment activities in the coastal area to the S.P.O. for the above advice.
Such referrals, however, shall be made only with the concurrency of the
client. The above information will be used by the O.E.R. in its ad-
visory capacity of assessing the need for new energy facilities.

Furthermore, the O.E.R. recognizes that there are facilities and re-
sources that are in the national interest and is in agreement with the
statements relating thereto in the Appendix (El) of Maine's Coastal
Program.

Signed at Augusta, Maine, this

OFFICE OF ENERGY RESOURCES STATE PLANNING OFFICE

John Joseph, Director
Allen G. Pease, Director

2.6 STATE CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST

The State of Maine recognizes the need to consider national interest
in the siting of energy facilities. Consideration of this issue has been
specifically addressed in Appendix El of the HIS Maine Coastal Program,
August 1978, and Section 3 of this document delineates major State poli-
cies and laws acting in the national interest.

Briefly, the State of Maine has considered and continues to consider
energy facilities within the context of national interest in the follow-
ing ways:

2.6.1 Conservation - "The cornerstone of the National Energy Plan is
conservation." (p. 35 of the Plan).

Maine's Response - Maine's Energy Policy docu ment, as adopted by
the Governor, has as a prime objective the@conservation of energy
11through the reduction or elimination of processes that waste
energy." Conservation related policies call for, for example:
public education; mandatory conservation where necessary; incen-
tives and penalties; public funding' to improve energy efficiency
in production, ...If ("Maine Comprehensive Energy Plan" Office of
Energy Resources, 1976")

2.6.2 Oil Refineries

Maine's Response - Maine recognizes that Congress has said in the
CZM Act that the siting of energy related facilities such as oil
refineries may be in the national interest. Applications for
siting such facilities are handled in the same way as other large
projects. They are subject to existing applicable laws, espe-
cially the Site Location Act, and are acceptable to the State
provided they meet environmental controls.

There have been a number of oil proposals for oil refineries on
the Maine coast. The State has generally not been the reason
that none have been built so far. The most recent proposal is
the Pittston Oil Companies proposal for the construction of
250,00O.barrel/day oil refinery and terminal at Eastport. The
Board of Environmental Protection has given its approval as
has EPA.

Other proposals and their fate include:

Occidental Petroleum proposed a re finery complex and a 300,000
barrel/day oil terminal in a Machiasport free trade zone in 1968.
The application was supported by Maine, but ran into opposition
from major oil companies. The King Resources Inc. proposal for
oil terminal on Long Island was turned down by DEP, overturned
by the courts but never built because the company went bankrupt.
Atlantic Richfield proposed constructing a 100,000 barrel/day
refinery located inland from Machiasbay but withdrew application
in 1969. In 1969 Maine Clean Fuels was refused a permit both
in So. Portland and Searsport because they could not demonstrate

financial capability to meet the environmental standards of
the State. The New England Energy Company submitted a pro-
posal to build a refinery in Sanford (not coastal) with ter-
minals at Portland. There was considerable favorable res-
ponse to this proposal even from some "environmental" organi-
zations. The application was withdrawn, however in 1975 with
the collapse of the funding for Burnah Oil Company.

2.6.3 Outer Continental Shelf - "Oil and gas under Federal ownership
on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are important national
assets. It is essential that they be developed in an orderly
manner, consistent with national energy and environmental poli-
cies. The Congress is now considering amendments to the OCS
T
@ands Act, which would provide additional authorities to ensure
that OCS development proceeds with full consideration of environ-
mental effects and in consultation with states and communities.
These amendments would require a flexible leasing program using
bidding systems that will enhance competition, ensure a fair re-
turn to the public, and promote full resource recovery." (1). 56,
Plan)
Maine's Response - OCS related development is permitted in Maine's
coastal area subject to applicable laws. The Governor has com-
mitted the State to taking the lead in assisting coastal commu-
nities to prepare for onshore facilities related to OCS develop-
ment. Several Maine communities including Kittery, South Portland,
Portland and Bath, Rockland, Belfast and Searsport have notified
the Governor of their desire to attract service and supply bases
to their harbors. The Governor'sor.--@n letter to the offshore oil
industry is attached in the Appendix.

The State Planning Office, using funds provided by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, has an ongoing program to offer communi-
ties funds and technical assistance to plan for onshore facilities.
The following is a list of completed products in this endeavor.
(They are all available upon request from the State Planning Office,
189 State Street, Augusta, ME)

Maine and the Search For OCS Oil and Gas by Charles S. Colgan,
the State Planning Office, January 1978, accompanied by - Two
Technical Memoranda: Service Bases for Offshore Oil and a Bibli-
ography.

Offshore Oil Exploration

Potential Service Base Sites, City of Bath, Maine, October 31,
1977.

Outer Continental Shelf Service Source Base Development on the
Portland Water Front, August 15, 1977

Rockland,.Maine: Home Port of Industry. October, 1977.

Stockton Springs, Searsport, Belfast: Onshore Service,
Offshore Drilling, A Site Study, June, 1977.

Maine's Coastal Program, through 306 funding intends to con-
tinue the support of local planning efforts and the State
intends to use future Coastal Zone Management funds to assist
in this endeavor. Maine has made known its concerns relating
to OCS boundary settlement and the effect of some leases on
the Maine fishery.

2.6.4 Nuclear Power - "The United States will need to use more light-
water reactors to help meet its energy needs. The Government
will give increased attention to light-water reactor safety,
licensing, and waste management so that nuclear power can be
used to help meet the U.S. energy deficit with increased safety."
(p. 70 of the Plan).

"In addition, the President is requesting that the (Nuclear
Regulatory) Commission develop firm siting criteria with clear
guidelines to prevent siting of future nuclear plants in densely
populated locations, in valuable natural areas, or in potentially
hazardous locations. Finally, the waste generated by nuclear
power must be managed so as to protect current and future gene-
rations." (p. 72 of the Plan).

Maine's Response - Maine's Energy Plan states that it is the
policy of the State: "To take no action which would preclude
the development of nuclear electric generating facilities in
Maine. However, questions regarding disposal of nuclear wastes,
the future availability of nuclear fuels, and the general safety
of nuclear facilities must be resolved at the Federal level be-
fore new nuclear plants are built in Maine."

Currently one half of the nuclear electric generation produced
in Maine's coastal zone goes to utilities in southern New England
and New York.

2.6.5 Liquefied Natural Gas - "Due to its extremely high costs and
safety problems, LNG is not a long-term secure substitute for
domestic natural gas. It can, however, be an important supply
option through the mid-1980's and beyond, until additional gas
supplies may become available." (p. 57 of the Plan).

"The previous Energy Resources Council guidelines are being re-
placed with a more flexible policy that sets no upper limit on
LNG imports. Under the new policy, the Federal Government
would review each application to import LNG so as to provide
for its availability at a reasonable price without undue risks
of dependence on foreign supplies.

Maine's Response - Sears Island was one of two sites picked
by the consultants as an LNG port terminal. The recommendation
was for Pride Island in Rhode Island. The Federal Energy Regu-
latory Commission is currently considering the Maine site as an
alternative in a draft EIS on the effect of the proposed Tenneco
Gas Pipeline.

Such a facility, if proposed, would be considered under thE!
Site Location Law and other applicable laws.

2.6.6 Pipelines - "It is clear that the energy transportation routes
built in the first half of the century will have to be sup--
plemented by new routes." (p. 58-59).
Maine's Response - Maine recognizes that Congress has said that
the siting of energy related facilities such as pipelines may
be in the national interest. Applications for siting such
facilities are handled in the same way as other large projects.
As mentioned above, a trans-state gas pipeline that would cross
much of the coastalarea is presently under consideration by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State. Proposed by
Tenneco, the pipeline would transport 1 billion cubic feet/day
for use in states to-the south of Maine. Recent legislation
enacted in Maine permits the sppeded-up review of this proposal
by the Department of Environmental Protection because of tae
national energy situation. Thus pipelines are allowed and are
subject to applicable laws.

South Portland is currently the terminal for the Portland Pipe-
line Company leading to Montreal. Presently, twice as much petro-
leum is shipped through Maine as is consumed in the State. In
the recent past up to 169,000,000 barrels of oil have been shipped
through Portland annually.
Additionally the 200 mile Searsport to Limestone Pipeline cur-
rently supplies 'refined petroleum products to Loring Air Force
Base from its southern terminus at the port of Searsport.

2.6.7 Strategic Petroleum Reserve/Regional Storage

Maine's Response - The Governor has demonstrated his support
for locating a Strategic Petroleum Reserve/Regional Storage fa-
cility either in Maine or New England. Many of the possible
sites identified in Maine are within the coastal zone. Please
see Appendix for copy of Governor's letter and list of sites
nominated for consideration.

Maine's analysis of National Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
Maine's storage capacity is available from the Office of Energy
Resources and a paper "Strategic Petroleum Reserves in Maine:
A Discussion Paper by George Tibbetts, July 1977. Another
reference is "Preliminary'Geologic Survey of Potential Under@
gro nd Oil Storage Sites in Maine, a Report @_o -Maine Bureau of
Geology, Department of Conservation, by'Charles Guidotti,
Robert Gerber, July 8, 1977.

I
I STATE POLICIES FOR MANAGING ENERGY FACILITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS 3
1
E
11 N
E
I R
G
I y
F
I A
c
I I
L
I
I T
I y
s
I
I T
I
I N
G
I

I
I

" ",I

3. STATE POLICIES FOR MANAGING ENERGY FACILITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS

(Articulation of State policies for managing energy facilities and
their impacts, including a clear articulation of policies regard-
ing conditions that may be imposed on site location and facility
development)(Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 41, Section 923.14 (1).

3.1 POLICIES RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY RESOURCES IN THE STATE

The following policies guide the State's actions in dealing with
issues relative to siting energy facilities and managing their impacts.

1. To institute emergency and long-range planning and 5 M.R.S.A. �5002
management of the energy sources and energy cur- State Energy
rently available to the people of the State; and Resources Act
to take into consideration in such planning the
wise use and conservation of the natural resources
of the State, the protection of the environment,
the orderly development of industry, and above
all the present and future well being of the people
of the State.

2. To prepare a comprehensive energy resources plan 5 M.R.S.A. 95005
to be revised and updated at least annually, which State Energy
plan shall include, but is not limited to, a des- Resources Act
cription and quantification of the projected needs,
rate of use and availability of various energy re-
sources to meet future State needs; a cost analysis
of providing energy to meet the State's future
needs; a description of the assumptions upon which
the predictions and costs are based and the proba-
bility of error in the projections of the plan.

3. To encourage and direct or sponsor research and 5 M.R.S.A. �5005
experiments within the State to develop alternate
energy sources, particularly, but not limited to,
those sources which rely on the renewable natural
resources of the State, such as the water of the
tides and rivers, the forests, the winds and other
sources which to date have not been fully explored
or utilized.

4. To provide conservation alternatives to new elec- 5 M.R.S.A. �5005
tric power generating plants and render an account
of the long-term and short-term energy savings
realized by the conservation alternatives.

5. To encourage and direct, in conjunction with pri- 5 M.R.S.A. �5005
vate industry, the practical development and op-
eration on a small scale of experimental projects
involving alternate energy sources, in order to
ascertain the potential usefulness of such alter-
nate energy sources and their costs, provided only
that such projects shall be subject to the regula-

tions of those State agencies con cerned with the 5 M.R.S.A. 95005
protection of the environment and preservation of
the natural resources of the State, and with regu-
lation of other energy sources. (Eederal Register
Vol. 43, No. 41, Section 923-14 (1).
To prepare a State energy policy to include, but 5 M.R.S.A@ �5005
is not limited to, the following: the direction or
directions most feasible for Maine to pursue in the *
field of energy resources use and development, fea- *
sible alternatives to implement the State energy plan*
and long-range as well as short-range energy pro-
grams.
7. To encourage voluntary energy conservation among *5 M.R.S.A. �5005
State and local government, industry, business, and *
the public for the most efficient utilization of
available energy.
8. To encour age the use of solar energy equipment under 5 [email protected]. _�5005
the State policy of providing tax incentives to de-
velop alternate energy resources.
9. Assure a supply of energy, at costs at least com- *The Halfway Point:
petitive with those of other states, which is ade- *Goals and.Major
quate for the future health and economic welfare of *Activities for
the people of Maine. *1977-1978
10. To continue to provide public information on ways to Governor's Execu-
utilize native energy resources. tive Order of
April 25, 1977:
State of Maine
Energy Policy

11. To work with State colleges and universities to in- Governorls Execu-
vestigate and promote utilization of Maine's native tive Order of
energy resources. April 25, 1977-
State of Maine
Energy Policy
12. To encourage, through legislation, tax exemption Governor's Execu-
or other economic incentive, at both State and tive Order of
federal levels, the use of solar, wind, and small- *April 25, 1977:
scale hydroelectric energy resources. *State of Maine
*Energy Policy

13. To diversify the energy supply base in the State and *Governor's Execu-
promote a more equitable distribution of energy re- *tive Order of
sources. Maine should reduce its dependence on pet- *April 25, 1977:
troleum as a major energy supply, replacing it with *State of Maine
more abundant conventional and renewable sources. Energ- Policy
Y
Greater diversification of the types of energy sup-
ply and the distribution system within Maine should
also be encouraged.

14. ro promote the use of coal for heavy industrial * Governor's Execu-
and electric generation uses. * tive Order of
* April 25, 1977:
State of Maine
Energy Policy

15. To evaluate the possible costs, benefits and supply * Governor's Execu-
potential to Maine of energy resources transported * tive Order of
or transmitted through, and primarily designated for* April 25, 1977:
use outside the State. * State of Maine
* Energy Policy

16. To improve the regulatory process governing energy * Governor's Execu-
development in Maine so as to minimize government * tive Order of
interference yet insure the protection of Maine's * April 25, 1977:
consumers and the State's environment. * State of Maine
* Energy Policy

17. To promote industrial siting and development which * Governor's Execu-
allows one facility or process to utilize energy * tive Order of
rejected by another facility or process (cogenera- * April 25, 1977:
tion). * State of Maine
* Energy Policy

3.2 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENERGY
FACILITIES

Natural resource management policies of Maine were written to cover
all types of activity that might cause environmental degradation, includ-
ing development and siting of energy facilities. A complete listing of
these policies is given in Section 6 of the Coastal Program Document.

The following natural resource policies affect the siting of energy
facilities. Starred items * indicate policies which are enforceable by
incorporation into existing law.
1. To control the location of those developments sub- 38 M.R.S.A. �481
stantially affecting the local environment in order
to insure that such developments will be located
in a manner which will have minimal adverse impact
on the natural environment of their surroundings.

2. To approve such developments when: 38 M.R.S.A. 9484
1) The developer has the financial capacity and
technical ability to meet State air and water
pollution control standards, and has made ade-
quate provision for solid waste disposal, the
control of offensive odors, and the securing
and maintenance of sufficient and healthful
water supplies.
2) The developer has made adequate provision for
traffic movement of all types out of or into
the development area.

3) The developer has`@nade adequate provision for 38 M.R.S.A. �484
fitting the development harmoniously into the
existing natural environment and that the de-
velopment will not adversely affect existing
uses, scenic character, or natural resources
in the municipality or in the neighboring muni-
cipalities.
4) The proposed development will be built upon
soil types which are suitable to the nature of
the undertaking.

3. In the case of proposed construction of a trans-
mission line of 100 kilovolts or more or a gas pipe-*
line, consideration shall be given to whether any
proposed alternatives to the proposed location and
character of such transmission line or pipeline may
lessen its impact on the environment or the risks
it would engender to the public health or safety,
without unreasonably increasing its cost. Approval
or disapproval of all or portions of such a pro-
posed project may be made and orders shall be made
regarding its location character, width and appear-
ance as will lessen its impact on the environment,
having regard for any increased costs thereby caus-
ed.
4. To take no action which would preclude the develop- * Governor's Execu-
ment of nuclear electric generation facilities in * tive Order of
Maine. However, questions regarding disposal of * April 25, 1977:
nuclear wastes, the future availability of nuclear * State of' Maine
fuels, and the general safety of nuclear facilities Energy Policy
must be resolved at the Federal level before new and 10 M.R.S.A.
nuclear plants are, built in Maine. �253

3.3 STATE POLICIES ON OCS DEVELOPMENT

Since the Governor has clearly explained Maine's policies regarding
OCS development these are used for more information in state's role in
OCS in Section 2.6.3.

1. Where significant new business opportunities are Governor Longley,
identified which, on balance, would produce more Statement to the
gains than losses, the State will seek to work in House OCS Sub-
partnership with oil and gas development interests, committee, 1975
coastal area communities, and the Federal govern-
ment to bring those opportunities to reality.
2. The realization that Georges Bank oil and gas de- Governor Longley,
velopment, if it occurs at all, will be a memory in Statement to the
50 years will be a guiding factor in Maine's ap- House OCS Sub-
proach to OCS development. Careful attention must committee, 1975
be given to insuring a high degree of environmental
protection.

3. Maine supports changes in the way oil and gas * From Governor
development decisions are made so that affected * Longley's State-
states and communities can become partners with * ment to the House
the Federal government and the petroleum industry Subcommittee,
in making decisions about the pace and location 1975
of development, both onshore and offshore.

4. The development of a national energy policy and From Governor
plan which examines the desirability of accelerat- Longley's State-
ing offshore oil and gas production within an over- ment to the House
all framework of energy supply, conservation, and Subcommittee,
use, and which establishes the rationale for accel- 1975
erating offshore oil and gas production is essen-
tial for sensible development of offshore petroleum

resources.

5. Any outstanding boundary issues, including those * From Governor
between the United States and Canada, and between * Longley's State-
adjacent states, should be settled as quickly as ment to the House
possible in order to clarify the situation regard- Subcommittee,
ing future lease sales, inshore management respon- 1975
sibilities, and distribution of related Federal
grants and loans.

6. The State will take the lead in helping coastal Governor Longley,
communities and coastal area citizens prepare for Statement to the
the onshore activities which could accompany off- House OCS Sub-
shore oil and gas development. The objective of committee, 1975
this assistance will be to pinpoint new business
opportunities for Maine, to evaluate the likelihood
of Maine coastal communities being asked to host
specific types of oil related development and to de-*
velop an understanding of the needs and consequen-
ces of oil related development.

I
I PLANNING PROCESS FOR NEW ENERGY FACILITIES 4
1
E
I N
E
I R
G
I y
F
I A
c
I I
L
I
I T
A y
s
I
I T
I
I N
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

(Identification of how interested and affected public and private parties
may be involved in the planning process, and a discussion of the means
for continued consideration of the national interest, in the planning
for and siting of energy facilities that are necessary to meet more than
local requirements, after program approval) (Federal Register Vol. 43,
No. 41, Section 923.14 (1))

The consideration of the national interest and how Maine responds to
it was discussed in Section 2.6 of this report. The opportunities for
participation of public and private parties in the regulatory process was
discussed under Section 2.2. Additionally, all Planning reports and pro-
posed legislative changes are subject to public hearing requirements un-
der the State Administration Act. This document as well as all major
amendments to the Coastal Program will be subjected to public discussion.

Rather than repeating information, this section will describe the
State's planning efforts in identifying need for and siting of future
energy facilities.

4.1 Maine Office of Energy Resources

State authority to engage in planning for energy programs is vested
in the Maine Office of Energy Resources under the power promulgated in
the State Energy Resources Act (5 M.R.S.A. Sec. 5001-5009). The Office
engages in both short and long-range planning as well as forecasting.

The Director of the Office of Energy Resources has the authority
and the responsibility to act in the following ways:

1. To obtain assistance from the New England Power Pool and de-
partments, agencies, authorities, boards, commissions and other
instrumentalities of State Government in the gathering of infor-
mation, reports and data wbich-relate to planning and develop-
ment of energy resources;

2. To be responsible for the coordination of all State energy pro-
grams and the coordination of State programs with programs and
plans developed by private organizations and the Federal Govern-
ment;

3. To be responsible for the administration of all Federal energy
programs within the State of Maine;

4. To be responsible for the dissemination of energy related in-
formation to the public; and

5. To be responsible for the formulation of a comprehensive State
energy resources plan and a State energy policy.

The Office of Energy Resources must comply with the following re-
quirements:

1. Prepare a comprehensive energy plan that includes, but is not
limited to, a description and quantification of the present
supply, rates of use and energy needs of the State; a descrip-
tion and quantification of the project needs, rate of use and

availability of various energy resources to meet future State
needs; a cost analysis of providing energy to meet the Statevs
future needs; a description of the assumptions upon which the
predictions and costs are based and the probability of error
in the projections in the plan;

2. Prepare a State energy policy that includes, but is not limited
to, the following: the direction or directions most feasible
for Maine to pursue in the field of energy resource use and de-
velopment, feasible alternatives to implement the State energy
plan and long-range as well as short-range energy programs;

3. Encourage voluntary energy conservation among State and local
government, industry, business and the public for the most: ef-
ficient utilization of available energy;

4. The Director of Energy Resources shall be responsible for col-
lecting and analyzing energy data from all available energy sources
ZI
in and outside the State;

5. Provide technical assistance to the Governor and the Legislature
in identifying the emergency and long-range needs and resources to
meet these needs for the State;

6. Upon request, provide planning and technical assistance to public
and private groups in the field of energy planning;

7. Encourage and direct or sponsor research and experiments within
the State to develop alternate energy sources, particularly, but
not limited to, those sources which rely on the renewable natural
resources of the State, such as the water of the tides and rivers,
the forests, and winds and other sources which to date have not
been fully explored or utilized;

8. Encourage and direct, in conjunction with private industry, the
practical development and operation on a small scale Of Etxperi-
mental projects involving alternate energy sources, in order to
ascertain the potential usefulness of such alternate energy sources,
and their costs, provided only that such projects shall be subject
to the regulations of those State agencies concerned with the pro-
tection of the environment and preservation of the natural resources
of the State, and'with regulation of other energy sources;

The Office of Energy Resources, with the consent of the Governor,
may employ such expert and professional consultants as it deems
,necessary within the limit of funds available and consistant with
the powers and,duties of the office.

The Office of Energy Resources is assisted by the State Energy Resources
Advisory Board, appointed by the Governor to advise him, the Legislature and
the Director of the Office of Energy Resources. The members of the Board
shall provide information and assistance in the development of a State energy

resources plan and in the research and developme nt phase of the office's
activities as requested by the Director.

Membership in the Advisory Board consists of a broad cross section
of concerned persons and must include the following:

- one member of the Maine House of Representatives;

- one member of the Maine Senate;

- one Representative of the Public Utilities Commission;

- and six members to be selected on the basis of their interest,
education and experience in the areas of energy planning, re-
search and development, to include one representative of industry,
one representative of labor,'one representative of the academic
community, 2 representatives of the general public and one repre-
sentative of the business community.

4.2 STATE PLANNING OFFICE

The State Planning Office, Natural Resources Planning Division,
including the Coastland Planning Program is engaged in extensive planning
work much of which is directly related to or helpful in energy facility plan-
ning.

The Coastal Program under the 305 planning has completed an extensive
inventory of coastal resources. "Maine Coastal Inventory: a Handbook"
lists and explains the information contained in the Coastal inventory maps.
Mapped information primarily at the scale of 1:48,000 includes topography,
slopes, watersheds, water classification, general soil, fish and wildlife
resources, land cove types and recreational facilities and activities. Of
particular use to developers are the favorability maps referred to in sec-
tion 2.1 which shows the construction and opportunities for large scale
individual development.

Other resource maps on the coastal region include Maine environments
(1:24,000) yield of Bedrock levels, Thickness of Overburden Bedrock Sur-
face Topography, Potentiometric surface of Bedrock Wells, all at the scale
of (1:125,000) Water Supply and Demand and Surf icial Geology, at 1:24,000.

The Maine Coast, a Statistical Source" provides extensive demographic,
socio-"economic information on coastal towns and counties.

Another report identifying areas suitable for acq uisition or
development for recreational purposes "The Maine Coast: Recreation and
Open Space", eventhough in draft form, provides additional useful informa-
tion. Another study and process which is useful, in the identifying areas
which development has to proceed with caution is the Critical Areas Pro-
gram of the State. The Program is described in Appendix D of the FEIS.
ITA Preliminary Listing of Noteworthy Natural Features in Maine", published
in 1976, updated information is always available from the State Planning
Office.

There are a number of studies and projects currently in progress
which are supported by the State Planning Office either by funds or
through the use of the above mentioned information.
Ecological Characteristics of the Maine Coast being conducted by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service promise@ to-be the most detailed and
defined study of coastal environments. A pilot study area report for
the Sheepscot River Waterbed has already been published. The authors
used SPO inventory data for this study.

The SPO is also funding a study by Water Resource Center of the
University of Maine to assess the capability of Maine coastal waters
to assimilate pollution loading (including thermal discharges) of -various
kinds relating to onshore development. In addition, the SPO through its
review function of EIS's and other plans provides input in data and coor-
dination with its own planning processes.
Also, coordinated by the State Planning Office is the work of the
Commission on Maine's Future. The policies of the Commission have not
yet been adopted but the Commission on Maine's Future, Final Report,
December 1, 1977, has some recommendations regarding energy. Aside from
recommendations on energy conservation, the following are relevant to
this report:
"4. A tidal plant such as the one proposed at Cobscook Bay should
be studied to evaluate economic and environmental impacts".

"5. Encourage all non-destructive hydro potential in the state...
Massive hydro-electric projects which involve environmental
sacrifices should not be permitted if feasible alternatives
exist."

"6. Do not prohibit additional nuclear facilites but consider
each on a case-by-case basis with special emphasis placed
on thermal pollution, operational safety of the plant, and a
satisfactory solution to the problem of disposal of radio-
active-spent fuel."
Another policy recommendation effort, coordinated by the Coastal Pro-
gram has been the study of the Committee on Coastal Development and Con-
servation, (The CCDC which is advisory to the Governor and the SPO on
coastal planning) on heavy industrial siting. Directed by the Governor,
the Committee was asked to prepare a report on the question "where should
heavy industry be sited in coastal Maine". The work was carried out by
Department of Conservation in cooperation with the Office of Energy Re-
sources.
The study identified heavy industries most likely to locate in the
coastal zone during the next 25 years. Heavy industries thought most like-
ly to locate where energy facilities, (included in Section 1 of this report)
and identified the industries with the most constraining site requirements.
Using these constraints, the coast of Maine was screened for areas that met
those requirements.

The recommendations were discussed at a set of public hearings held
in early August. The CCDC will evaluate the response and make its recom-
mendations to the Governor and Legislature. If there are substantial
changes to the legal framework which is the core of the current coastal
program, then there will be public hearings and other notification pur-
suant to the required procedures for amending the Coastal Program.

Since 1975 the State Planning Office has been engaged in planning
efforts for the possible development of OCS petroleum reserves on Georges
Bank.

Through the OCS Planning Program, a part of Maine's Coastal Program,
an attempt has been made to develop information about offshore petroleum
development which will be useful to State and local government agencies,
and to Maine citizens in general. The uncertainty about future events on
Georges Bank as well as onshore activities is a limiting factor on planning,
but it can be reduced substantially through an examination of similar ex-
perience in other parts of the world -- a study of the characteristics of
onshore facilities, and a review of the research on OCS development.

The report from these planning efforts has already been listed under
Section 2.6.3.

4.3 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY

The Land Use Regulation Commission in its comprehensive planning effort
has addressed the energy question briefly. Its policies regarding develop-
ment essentially encourages monitoring the existing patterns.

Regarding energy facilities the plan

"7. Requires that new utility lines, pipelines, and public transpor-
tation right-of-ways and their associated facilities be located
away from scenic areas or be landscaped so that they do not de-
grade a scenic area". ( 'Comprehensive Land Use Plan for The
Plantation and Unorganized Townships of the State of Me. LURC
Augusta, ME.,August, 1976)

The plan was adopted by the LURC and approved by the Governor on
September 17, 1976.

The Air Bureau in Department of Environmental Protection is responsible
for an air quality implementation plan to show how Maine will meet and main-
tain air quality standards and pursuant to the 1977 amendments how existing
air quality will not be degraded beyond minimum allowable levels. Develop-
ers are encouraged to consult with the Air Bureau for assistance in facility
siting.

Some Regional Planning Commissions have completed or are working on
comprehensive plans for regional development. The Greater Portland Council
of Governments, has adopted "Regional Development Framework" in February 14,
1978. This document outlines the policies regarding development and energy

energy facilities siting.

The Hancock County Planning Commission is currently discussing with
its member municipalities a "Proposed Growth Management Framework Plan".
The process includes suggested policies for guiding individual develop-
ment to current urban and major activity centers. While no specific poli-
cies regarding energy facilities are explicated, the proposed policies
regarding forest, agricultural, marine resources and recreation/tourism
ate related by identifying potential conflicts with energy facility sites.

Developers are urged to contact these and other Regional Planning
Commissions both for guidance in their policies as well as for more: de-
tailed technical information and data than is available on the State level.

A list of Regional Planning Commissions, their addresses and phone
numbers are included in the Appendix.

4.4 IN COOPERATION WITH 0 THER AGENCIES

4.4.1 New England River Basins Commissions (NERBC)

The State is an active participant of NERBC with the Director of the
State Planning Office serving as Maine's member of the Commission.

NERBC was created at the request of the Governors of the New England
States and New York by an Executive Order in 1967 under Title 11 of the
Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-80). The Commission is a
federal-state partnership consisting of members of the previously named
states. ten federal agencies and six interstate agencies.

Special studies presently underway by NERBC directly related to energy
facility planning and siting in the coastal zone, which is consistent with
the objectives of CFR 923.14,.include the following:

a. OCS Pipeline Study -- An Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Pipeline
Study of the potential environmental impacts of submarine pipe-
lines used to transport oil and/or gas from the outer continental
shelf to shore. Recommendations on methods to minimize problems
will be included.

b. Siting of OCS-Related Facilities -- Extensive studies on the
Siting of OCS-Related Facilities have been completed and will con-
tinue to be updated. This program includes provisions for tech-
nical assistance to local and State planning groups.

c. Power Plant Siting -- NERBC is preparing a set of water and re-
lated land resource criteria and guidelines to aid in the develop-
ment of a planning strategy for use in siting bulk power plants
in New England. The study will be coordinated with a related pro-
ject underway by the Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Council.

d. Hydroelectric Power Potential in New England -- NERBC is investi-
gating the potential benefits and impacts of hydroelectric develop-
ment in New England.

e. Natural Resource Information Management System -- NERBC is
investigating the feasibility of developing a natural re-
sources data management system for the region.

4.4.2 Northeast Solar Energy Center

Maine is a regional participant in the Northeast Solar Energy Cen-
ter (NESEC), which is a regional center to foster the widespread commer-
cialization of solar energy. Northern Energy Corporation developed the
center with a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The Governor of Maine has appointed three persons to serve as Maine's
Regional Participant, Regional Council Member, and Board of Trustees mem-
ber, respectively. Maine members are assisting in both the planning and
project work of NESEC, which will fulfill the President's decision that the
best way to provide widespread use of solar energy is through a regionally
diversified effort.

Among the objectives of the Center are:

- to reduce the regional dependence on oil, especially foreign
oil and gas;

- to utilize the natural resources of the region for energy needs,
including biomass from forests and farms-. wind energy, and ocean
energy; and

- to engage the instutional resources of the region--governmental,
intellectual, financial and industrial--in the solution of the
problem.

In meeting these objectives, NESEC will support and engage in region-
ally oriented programs in the following solar technologies:

1) solar heating and cooling

2) wood and other biomass energy conversion

3) wind energy conversion

4) solar photovoltaic conversion

5) ocean wave and tidal energy conversion.

4.4.3. New England Regional Commission (NERCOM)

The State continues to receive and supply information to this agency
.on the energy needs of the region. NERCOM has established an Energy Re-
search and Policy Formulation Program which is responsible for the Com-
mission's Energy Program.

The goal of the Energy Program is to supply the members of the New
England Regional Commission, which is comprised of the six New England
Governors and a Federal Cochairman appointed by the President, with re-
liable baseline inf ormation on New England's energy requirements and vul-

nerability, and to provide the Governors and the region with viablE@
energy policy options and recommendations to guide New England's energy
future. The Commission's Energy Program staff works closely with the
Energy Advisors to the Governors and Energy Offices of the six New
England states in formulating, analyzing and disseminating the output
and results of the Energy Program, thereby achieving a measure of re-
gional coordination in tackling the complex of energy problems facing
the region.

The Energy Program is also involved in a broad range of projects
including examination and response to national energy policy, outer con-
tinental shelf policy formulation, regional petroleum and natural gas in-
dustry development programs, the New England Energy Management Informa-
tion System, regional power management program, U.S. Canadian cooperation
on energy matters, and technical policy assistance to the staffs of the
New England Governors on other numerous matters of regional energy poli_
cy formulation and analysis.

4.4.4 New England Federal Regional Council Energy Resource Development
Task Force

Maine is a member of the New England Federal Regional Council, which
is an interagency, inter-governmental coordination group. The purpose of
the council is to make a three tiered governmental system efficient and
responsive to the needs of citizens. Membership in the council including
the heads of 10 grant making federal agencies, ad hoc members in several
fields, including energy, economic development, and land use planning as
well as State and local officials and the agencies which they represent.

The council's Energy Resource Development Task Force consists of
representatives of federal agencies, the New England Governors, the New
England Regional Commission and the New England River Basins Commission.

4.4.5 National Governor's Association (NGA)

Maine's Governor is an active member of the National Governor's Asso-
ciation, a national organization representing the fifty-four Governors.
The NGA insures the informed participation of the nation's Governors in
the National policy-making process.

The NGA Energy Policy Project was begun several years ago to suyport
the Governors' participation in energy-related policy areas. This program
functions under the direction of the Natural Resources and Environmental
Management Committee (NEEMC), which has established energy subcommittees
for oil and gas, energy conservation, impact assistance, energy facility
siting, emergency preparedness, and coal.

4.4.6 Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council

The State of Maine through several of its agencies, including the
Office of Energy Resources, is cooperating with the Massachusetts Energy
Facilities Siting Council in developing a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
funded research project "An Integrated Regional Approach to Regulating
Energy Facility Siting."

The purpose of the project is "to assemble a set of regional elec-
trical demand forecasting, generation planning, and environmental assess-
ment tools which will be of direct use in the work of New England organi-
zations involved in energy facility siting." The project is regional in
scope because of overlapping State and utility boundaries, regional in-
pacts of power facilities, and the regional planning of the New England
Power Pool (NEPOOL).

The environmental assessment capability of the project will include
the ability to examine site suitability and environmental impact issues.
According to the Energy Facility Siting Council, environmental and socio-
economic data will be used in conjunction with computer capabilities to
accomplish the following:

a. initial site screening and selection;

b. detailed site suitability analysis;

c. assessment of alternative sites, generation types and
designs;

d. integration of siting factors into traditional generation
planning tools; and

e. analysis of the implications of water availability and
other constraints for long-range generation and siting
alternatives.

The capabilities of the project will be part of the public domain
allowing interagency use in the region.

I
I PRINCIPAL STATE AGENCIES FOR MANAGING ENERGY FACILITIES 5
1 E
I N
E
I R
G
I y
F
I A
c
I
I L
I
I T
y
1. s
I
I T
I
I N
G
I
I
I
a
I
I
I

5. PRINCIPAL STATE AGENCIES FOR MANAGING ENERGY FACILITIES

Several State agencies have legislated authority for managing energy
facilities and their impacts. A key aspect of the State's management role
is to reduce environmental impact and protect the public welfare. The
State agencies involved in this process are listed below.

5.1 Departmentof Environmental Protection (DEP)

The DEP, consisting of the Board of Environmental Protection, Com-
missioner, and Staff is the principal agency for administering the State's
environmental laws listed in Section 3. Authority for granting permits
within this Agency rests with the Board. Legislatively mandated authority
permits the Board of Environmental Protection to impose special conditions
on both the siting and operation of energy facilities. In permit pro-
ceedings the Board reviews input from other State agencies, Federal agen-
cies, and the public and private sector. The procedure is outlined in
Section IT of this document.

5. 2 Public Utilities Commission (PUC)

The PUC has regulatory authority over utility rates and the number of
new electric power plants in Maine. It also has this same authority over
natural gas pipelines. The PUC is responsible for assuring the financial
stability of utilities while protecting consumer interests. The PUC fore-
casts supply and demand for electricity.

5.3 Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC)

The LURC has the authority to grant permits for facilities in its
jurisdiction to impose special conditions on public utility facilities
constructed in the unorganized territories of the State to insure that
ginciples of sound planning are adhered to. It is in the Department of
onservation.
5.4 Maine Geological Survey

The Director of the Survey has the power to regulate the exploration
and mining of hydrocarbons on private and State owned land.

5.5 Maine Office of Energy Resources (OER)

Under the authority of the State Energy Resources Act, OER provides
long-range planning and promotes new sources of energy. The two major
objectives of the Energy Resources Act are conservation of natural re-
sources and environmental protection. OER has only advisory power, act-
ing as a primary source of information on siting and operation of energy
facilities.

5.6 State Planning Office (SPO)

The role of the SPO has been and will continue to be to offer tech-
nical assistance to developers or government agencies. coordinate the im-
plementation of State policy by other State/local governments and provide
other advisory services as requested. Included is the considerahle res-
ponsibility of offering technical assistance to consultants who prepare
environmental impact statements and the review of these statements op
development proposals. 56

Under the 306 program, as more fully described in Section 8.2
of the FEIS, the State Planning Office will continue to work on re-
fining State policy regarding the siting of heavy industry with the
objective of streamlining the regulatory process, and providing
positive guidance to developers, allowing local initiative yet still
protecting the environmental resources of the coast.
Under the 306 program, the State Planning Office will also guide
and coordinate activities to bring about federal consistency. The re-
view will be conducted by the core law agencies with the SPO acting
as administrative agent of the process (please see Appendix E of the
FEIS for full description).

a
a

APPENDICES

-ww
E
I N
E
I R
G
I y
F
I A
c
I I
L
I
I T
I y
s
I
I T
I
I N
G
I
I - -
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX TO SECTION 2.2

REGULATIONS

SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR HEARINGS

ON APPLICATIONS OF

SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST

'30.1 - 30.26

EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 11, 1975

AMENDED DATE FEBRUARY 8, 1978

Supercedes all Previous

Regulations for

Hearings on Applications

State of Maine
Department of Environmental Protection 1/78

A-1

1-0351 DEPARTMENTAL

BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SPECIAL REGULATION FOR HEARINGS
ON APPLICATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST

30.1 Scope of Regulations

These regulations shall be applicable to all hearings before the Board
of Environmental Protection on applications for new, renewed, amended or
transferred licenses, permits, certificates, variances, approvals or Other
determinations on specific matters (hereinafter "licenses") where the Board
has determined that the subject matter of the application is of significant
public interest.

These regulations shall not apply to Enforcement Hearings pursuant to
38 MRSA, Section 347, or to Hearings on Applications where no determination
of significant public interest has been made by the Board.

These regulations shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of such matters.

30.2 Consolidation

On motion and for good cause shown, or on its own initiative, the Board
may consolidate for hearing two or more proceedings if it finds that such
action will be conducive to just and proper dispatch of its business, the
rights of any party are not prejudiced and that opportunites for public par-
ticipation will not be compromised.

A consolidation under this section may be for any purpose or issue of
the proceedings.

30.3 Notice

A. Prior to any hearings conducted by the Board or the Department,
the Department shall provide notice:

1. to the applicant at least 10 days prior to the hearing by
registered mail return receipt requested;

2. to any intervenors who have qualified under Section 30.5 (a)
of this regulation at least 10 days prior to the hearing by regis-
tered mail return receipt requested;

3. at least 10 days prior to the hearing by regular mail to per-
sons who have filed a written request, within the calender year,
to be notified of hearings;

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-2

REGULATIONS 1-0352

4. at least 10 days prior to the hearing to persons who have made
a timely request to be notified of a specific hearing;

5. by publication twice in a newspaper of general circulation in
the area of the proposed activity. The date of the first publica-
tion shall be at least 14 but no more than 21 days prior to the
date of the hearing and the second publication shall be at least
7 but no more than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing.

B. Contents of Notice. Notices of hearings shall contain the follow-
ing minimum information:

1. reference to statutory authority;

2. the purpose of the hearing;

3. time, date, place of the hearing;

4. the manner in which views may be submitted for consideration;

5. the place and time where relevant material may be examined prior
to the hearing; and

6. the name, address and telephone number of the person to contact
for information.

A notice for a hearing involving regulations shall contain a clear con-
cise description of the regulation and the purpose for which the regu-
lation is being proposed.

30.4 Location

A. Hearings on air emission license applications shall be held within
the Air Quality Region where the proposed emission would occur.

B. Hearings on air emission variance applications shall be held in the
municipality where the building or business in connection with which the
variance is sought is located; except that if the building or business
in connection with which the variance is sought is located in an unor?-.il
ganized area, the hearing shall be held in such place as the Board or
the C- issioner determines is most convenient to the Board, the appli-
cant and other interested parties; provided, however, that if 5 or more
requests for vatiances are pending within the same Air Quality Region,
a single hearing on all such requests may be held at one place within
that region.

C. Hearings on sanitary district applications shall be held within the
proposed district.

State of Maine 1/78,
Department of Environmental Protection

A-3

1-0353 DEPARTMENTAL

D. All other hearings held pursuant.to these regulations shall be
held either in Augusta or in the general location of the proposed
activity for which license or approval is sought, at the discretion
of the Board or the Commissioner.

30.5 Public Participation

A. Intervention
1. Any person who desires to participate as a party, offer testi-
mony and evidence and participate,in cross-examination shall file
a petition for leave to intervene within 10 days of the Board des-
ignation of the hearing as one involving significant public inter-
est unless otherwise ordered by the Board or Commissioner. A peti-
tion shall be granted if it demonstrates:
a. that the petitioner has a direct and substantial interest
which may be affected by the proceedings;
b. that the petitioner has reasonably specific contentions re-
garding the subject matter of the hearing and the appropriate
statutory criteria; and
c. that the petitioner is prepared and capable of participa-
tion in the hearing in order to support sudh contentions.
2. A petition for leave to intervene which is not timely filed
will be denied unless the petitioner shows good cause for failure
to file on time.
3. A person permitted to intervene shall become a party to the
proceeding and shall be permitted to participate in the hearing,
subject, however, to such reasonable terms as the Board, Commis-
sioner or Presiding Officer may direct.
4. Petitioners may be required to consolidate or join their ap-
pearances in part or in whole if their interest or contentions are
substantially similar and such consolidation would expedite or
simplify the hearing without prejudice to the rights of any party
or petitioner. A consolidation under this section may be for all
purposes of the procedding, all of the issues of the proceeding, or
with respect to any one or more issues thereof.
5. Unless otherwise specified by the Board in granting a petition
to intervene, intervenor status shall be deemed to have been grant-
ed for the duration of the hearing, the post-hearing consideration
of the application, and any appeals arising from Board action on
the application. In addition, any applicant whose application is

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A,- 4

REGULATIONS 1-0354

approved shall be required to provide notice to any intervenors of
the filing of any documents presented to the Department indicating
(a) actions to comply with conditions attached to the approval or
(b) proposals to vary or amend development activities, timetables,
emission or effluent levels or volumes of solid waste as approved
by the Board, provided, however, that the applicant's responsibil-
ity under this paragraph (5) shall be deemed fulfilled when such
notice is mailed to the person designated to represent an interven-
or in the petition for intervention status.

B. Participation By Interested Persons

Any person who is not an intervening party under subsection (A)
may, in the discretion of the Presiding Officer, be permitted to parti-
cipate in a hearing by making oral or written statements of his posi-
tion on the issues, attend and participate in pre-hearing and mid-hear-
ing donferences, and submit written or oral questions through the Pre-
siding Officer, within such limits and on such terms and conditions as
may be fixed by the Board, Commisgioner or Presiding Officer.

C. State, Federal or Municipal Agencies

The Presiding Officer shall afford a representative of an interestv"
ed federal, state, municipal or other governmental agency which has not
petitioned to intervene a reasonable opportunity to participate in such
hearing and introduce evidence and question witnesses. Such represent-
ative shall be permitted such rights as are granted by this paragraph
only if representing the views and position of the agency on whose be-
half that representative appears and not personal views and opinions.

30.6 Pre-hearing Review

A. In all hearings under this regulation, the Board may order that
within specified time:

1. Designated intervenors shall review all materials provided by
the applicant and prepare in writing and serve on all parties;

a. specific questions which the intervenor believes should
be asked about the application and other supporting materials,
and

b. requests for additional materials which the intervenor
believes the applicant should provide.

2. Without precluding any further inquiry, Board members and staff
may also present to the applicant, in writing, specific questions
about the application and other supporting materials or requests
for additional materials.

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-5

1-0355 DEPARTMENTAL

3. The applicant shall respond in writing to requests pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (2) providing the answers to questions and the
requested materials or a statement as to why answers cannot or
shoild not be provided.
4. The applicant and each intervenoo shall provide a list of wit-
nesses and an outline of the areas to be covered in their direct
testimony, provided however, that witnesses and areas of testimony
may be added at any time with the permission of the Board.

5. When the above is completed, or a reasonable time has pasedd
the Board shall hold a pre-hearing conference and expeditiously
thereafter commence the public hearing.

a. Materials provided hereunder or that portion of such mater-
ials which are relevant to the hearing may be made part of the
record upon request of any party.
b. The provisions of this section may be invoked with the con-
sent of.the applicant prior to commencement of the public hear-
ing or where the Board deems necessary for expeditious process-
ing after a hearing has commenced.

30.7 Staff Review Paper

A. At least 14 days in advance of each hearing the Department staff
shall prepare a paper reviewing the application. Such paper shall:

1. Identify issues which the staff believes that the Board must
consider in reviewing the application,

2. Present a comparison of the applicant's proposed air emissions
and water effluents with any specific air emission or water efflu-
ent requirements which would apply to the applicant's proposal under
State or Federal statutes or regulations , and

3. Include any recommendations the staff has made to the applicant.

B. The above described staff review paper shall be mailed to the Board,
the applicant and any parties and shall be available to the public. not
less than 7 days in advance of the date set for commencement of the pub-
lic hearing.
C. Nothing in this Section (30.7) shall be construed to preclude the
staff from presenting testimony or questioning the applicant on any mat-
ter relevant to the application.
D. Any party may, prior to the commencement of the hearing, provide to
the Board written comments regarding the staff review paper.

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

REGULATIONS 1-0356

30.8 Conferences

A. The Board, the Commissioner or the Presiding Officer may upon no@-
tice to the applicant, other parties and any other persons whom the
Commissioner or the Presiding Officer deems appropriate, hold confer-
ences for the purpose of formulating or simplifying the issues, ob-
taining admissions of fact and of documents, arranging for the ex-
change of proposed exhibits or prepared expert testimony, limiting the
number of witnesses and consolidating of the examination of witnesses,
specifying procedure at the hearing, and such other matters which may
expedite orderly conduct and disposition of the proceedings.

B. All such conferences shall be open to the public, and the action
taken, and any agreement made at any such conference shall be stated
on the record by the Presiding Officer. Any person may ask questions
about or raise objections to such actions or agreements at the time
they are stated on the record.

C. At any pre-hearing conference:

1. Intervenors and other persons who will participate in a hear-
ing shall indicate what information they will be requesting of the
applicant that is not provided pursuant to Section 30.6.

2. The applicant shall be prepared to make available any background
or working papers or other documents, including raw data, which have
been prepared in connection with preparation of the application but
were not provided with the application where such is requested by
the Board, staff or any other person participating in the pre-hear-
ing conference and is deemed relevant and necessary by the Board.

3. Documents or other material requested which are not provided at
the pre-hearing conference shall be provided to all parties at a
time designated by the Presiding Officer in advance of the hearing,
or that portion of the hearing where such material is relevant,
which will allow reasonable opportunity to examtne the material and
prepare testimony and questions.

4. Where the documents or other material requested are of such a
nature that they do not lend themselves to reasonable and inexpen-
sive reproduction, the Presiding Officer may designate the manner
by which such materials may be reviewed.

30.9 Hearing Procedures

A. Presiding Officer

1. The Presiding Officer at any hearing shall be either (a) the
Commissioner if present and willing to preside, (b) a member of the

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-7

1-0357 DEPARTMEETAL

Board selected by those members present at the hearing, or (c) if
no Board member is present and willing to preside a qualified era-
ployee or representative of the Department as designated by the
Commistioner.

2. The Presiding Officer shalliNave the authority to:

a. require and administer oaths or affirmations;

b. rule upon issues of evidence;

c. regulate the course of the hearing;

d. rule upon issues of procedure;

e. grant or deny petitions for intervention which have not:
previously been ruled upon by the Board;

f. certify questions to the Board for its determination; and

g. take such other actions as may be ordered by the Board or
that are necessary forthe efficient and orderly conduct of the
hearing, consistent with these regulations and applicable Stat-
utes.

3. Whenever any action or order is required of the Presiding Of-
ficer and the Presiding Officer is unaVailable, such action or or
der may be issued by the Commissioner.

4. In special cases, where good cause appears, the Presiding Of-
ficer may permit deviation from these procedural rules in so far
as compliance therewith is found to be impractical or unnecessary.

B. General Conduct

1. Opening Statement. The Presiding Officer shall open the hear-
ing by describing in general terms the purpose of the hearing and
the general procedure governing its conduct.

2. Transcription of Testimony. All testimony at hearings before
the Board shall be recorded and, as necessary, transcribed.

3. Witnesses. Witnesses shall be sworn. Witnesses may be com-
pelled to attend, testify and produce records if subpoenaed by the
Board. Witnesses will be required to state for the record their
name, residence, business or professional affiliation, whether or
not they represent another individual, firm, association, organi-
zation, government agency or other legal entity for the purpose of

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

REGULATIONS 1@0358

the hearing.

4. Testimony in Written Form. At any time, prior to at during the
course of the hearing, the Commissioner or Presiding Officer may
require that all or part of the testimony to be offered at such a
hearing be submitted in written form at such time as may be speci-
fied. Such written testimony shall be submitted in such form and
at such time as the Presiding Officer may specify. All persons
offering testimony in written form shall be subject to cvoss-exam-
ination. All testimony offered in such written form shall be avail-
able for public inspection. The party submitting the written test-
imony may be required to serve a copy thereof on the applicant and
all intervening parties by the time specified, in order that all
persons participating in such hearings may have a reasonable opporl@
tunity to examine such testimony and prepare such question or cross-
examination as they deem necessary.

This rule shill not be construed to prevent oral testimony at a
scheduled hearing by any member of the public who requests and is
granted time to testify at a hearing.

30.10 General Evidence

A. Evidence which is relevant and material to the subject matter of
the hearing and is of a type commonly relied upon by reasonable prudent
persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible. Evidence
which is irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious shall be excluded.
The Department's experience, technical competence and specialized know-
ledge may be utilized in the evaluation of all evidence submitted to
the Board.

B. Official Notice. The Board may take official notice of any facts
of which judicial notice could be taken, and in addition may take offi-
cial of general, technical or scientific matters within its specialized
knowledge and of statutes, regulations and non-confidential agency re-
cords. Facts officially noticed shall be included and indicated as
such in the record.

C. Proof of Official Record. The Presiding Officer may require that
an official record or lack thereof be evidence by an official publica-
tion or by a copy or a statement attested by a person having, or who
would ordinarily have, the legal custody of the record.

D. Documentary and Real Evidence. All documents, materials and ob-
jects offered in evidence as.exhibits shall, if accepted, be numbered
or otherwise identified. Documentary evidence may be received in the
form of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available.
The Commissioner or the Presiding Officer may require, after prior

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-8

1-0359 DEPARTMENTAL

oral or written reasonable notice, that any party offering any docu-
mentary or photographic evidence shall provide the Board with a speci-
fied number of copies of such documents or photographs, unless such
documents or photographs are determined to be of such form, size or
character as not to be reasonably susceptible of reproduction. The
applicant and intervening parties and state, federal or municipal agen-
cies shall provide each other with copies of any exhibit offered irk
evidence unless otherwise ordered by the Presiding Officer. All docu-
ments, materials and objects admitted into evidence shall be made avail-
able during the course of the hearing for public examination. All such
evidenc&will also be available for public examination at the Depart-
ment's office in Augusta during normal business hours.

E. Record of Application. In ahy proceeding involving an application,
the application filed tith the Department, including exhibits and amend-
ments thereto, shall be placed into evidence.

F. Objections. All objections to rulings of the Presiding Officer re-
garding evidence or procedure and the gvounds therefor shall be timely
stated during the course of the hearing. If during the course of or
after the close of the hearing and during its deliberations the Board
determines that the ruling of the Presiding Officer was in error, it
may reopen the hearing or take such action as it deems appropriate to
correct such error.

30.11 Testimony and Questions

A. Direct Testimony. Direct testimony shall be offered in the follow-
ing order:

1. the applicant and representatives and witnesses the applicant
selects,

2. department staff, members and consultants,

3. state, municipal and other governmental agencies and represent-
atives thereof,

4. intervenors,

5. other interested persons.

.B. Cross-Examination and Questions. At the conclusion of the testi-
mony of each witness oral cross-examination of each witness may be
permitted in the following order:

1@. Board members, counsel, staff members and consultants may, be
permitted, by the Presiding Officer, to ask questions at any time,

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-9

REGULATIONS 1-0360

2. the applicant;

3. federal, state and other governmental representatives,

4. intervenors;

5. all other persons may have the opportunity to question such
witness by oral or written questions through the Presiding Officer.

- The-Presiding Officer may require that all examinations, either
written or oral, be conducted at the conclusion of the testimony of
each category of witnesses rather than at the conclusion of the testi-
mony of each individual wittLess.

The Presiding Officer may require that all cross-examination be
conducted in the form of written questions submitted to the Presiding
Officer and read to the witness or may prohibit persons other than the
applicant, intervenors, or governmental representatives from asking any
questions.

C. Redirect and Rebuttal Evidence. All parties shall have the right
to redirect and recross examination of any witness and to submit re-
buttal evidence. Such re-examination shall be limited to matters
brought out in the last examination by any other person except by leave
of the Presiding Officer. Rebuttal evidence shall be directed only to
matters brought out by another party except by leave of the Presiding
Officer.

D. Varying Order of Appearance. When circumstances warrant, the Com-
missioner or the Presiding Officer may vary the order in which wit".
nesses appear and the order in which testimony is given or witnesses
are cross-examined.

E. 1. Where prior to or during the course of a hearing, the Board de-
termines that testimony and questions at the hearing are likely to be
unduly protracted or lengthy, the Board may order that oral cross-ex-
amination by each intervenor be Idmited to a specified duration.

E. 2. The Board may reduce the oral cross-examination time so speci-
fied for each intervenor or any one intervenor on its own motion, or on
petition of any party where it determines that: (a) the large humber of
intervenors permitted to participate could unduly extend the proceedings,
(b) an intervenor failed to properly utilize pre-hearing review proced-
ures to obtain information, or (c) an intervenorls oral cross-examinai-
tion is repetitious of areas previously covered by cross-examination in
the proceeding.

A petition pursuant to this paragraph shall specify why reduced

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-10

1-0361 DEPARTMENTAL

cross-examination time is important to the petitioner and would not un-
duly restrict development of information relevant to the Board's deci-
sion and, if applicable, what acts or omissions of an intervenor justi-
fy the petition.

E. 3. The Board may increase the oral cross-examination time allocated
to each intervenor, or any one intervenor, on its own motion or on peti-
tion of any party where it determines that: (a) the subject matter be-
ing examined is sufficiently complicated or the issues iuvolved in an
application are sufficiently numerous to warrant more extensive cross-
examination; (b) new areas of inquiry have been discovered during cross-
examination which were not identified in advance of the hearing, or (c)
actions by the applicant including delayed or lengthy responses to
questions have made it difficult for the intervenor to complete cross-
examination within the specified time.

A petition pursuant to this paragraph shall specify why extended
cross-examination time is important to the petitioner and include the
matters which the petitioner desires to address in extended cross-exam-
ination, why these matters could not have been addressed in pre-hearing
review or normal cross-examination and, if applicable, what acts or'
omissions of an applicant justify the petition.

F. The Board may designate times during the hearing when members of
the public may ask questions and make statements, and may set time lim-
its on such questions or statements.

30.12 Continuance

All hearings conducted pursuant to these regulations may be continued
for reasonable cause and reconvened from time to time and from place to place
by the Commissioner or the Presiding Officer as circumstances require. All
orders for continuance shall specify the time and place at which such hearing
shall be reconvened. The Commissioner or the Presiding Officer shall notify
interested persons and the public in such a manner as is appropriate to in-
sure that reasonable notice will be given of the time and place of such re-
convened hearing.

30.13 Regulation of Certain Devices

The placement of television cameras, still cameras, motion picture
cameras or microphones at Boatd hearings may be regulated by the Commissioner
or the Presiding Officer in order that the use of subh equipment does not in-
terfere with the orderly conduct of the hearing.

30.14 Subpoenas

A. General. At the request of any party, or at the request of the
Board, or any member thereof, the.-,Presiding Officer may issue subpoenas

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-11

REGULATIONS 1-0362

for the attendance of witnesses or for the production of documents.

B. Form. Every subpoena so issued shall bear the name of the Board,
the name of the issuing officer and shall command the person to whom it
is directed to attend and give testimony or produce specified documents
or things at a designated time and place. The subpoena shall also ad-
vise of the quashing procedure provided herein.

C. Service. Unless receipt of the subpoena is ack&owledged by the
witness, it shall be served by a person who is not a party to the pro-
ceeding and is not less than 18 years of age. Service shall be made by
delivering a copy of the subpoena to the person named in it and tender-
ing the fees and milage paid to witnesses in the Superior Courts of
this State.

D. Return. The person serving the subpoena shall make proof of service,
by filing the subpoena and affidavit or acknowledgement of service with
the Commissioner. Failure to make such proof of service shall not af-
fect the validity of such subpoena and service.

E. Quashing. On motion made promptly, and in any event before the time
specified in the subpoena for compliance by the person to whom the sub-
poena is directed, and on notice to the party at whose instance the sub-
poena was issued, the Presiding Officer may (1) quash or modify the sub-
poena on a finding that it is unreasonable or requires evidence not rel-
evant to any matter in issue, or (2) condition denial of the motion on
just and reasonable terms. Any person requesting a hearing on a motion
to quash a subpoena shall be granted a hearing before the Board upon
such motion.

F. Confidentiality. If any person served with such subpoena claims,
at or before the hearing that the required production of books, records
or other data may disclose secret processes, formulae or methods used
by or under the direction of such person which are entitled to protec-
tion as trade secrets and the Board or the Presiding Officer determines
that such claim is valid, such information from such books, records, or
other data shall be disclbsed only at a non-public portion of the hear-
ing and the record thereof shall be confidential.

G. Enforcement. If any person refuses to obey a subponea issued by
the Board under this section, the Board may apply to any Justice of the
Superior Court for an order compelling such person to comply with the
requirementa of the subpoena.

H. Costs. The Boadd may condition denial of the subpoena upon the ad-
vancement by the person in whose behalf the subponea is issued of the
reasonable cost of producing the books, papers, documents, or tangible
things.

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-12

1-0363 DEPARTMENTAL

30.15 Offer of Proof
An offer of proof may be made in connection with an objection to a rul-
ing of the Presiding Officer excluding or rejecting any testimony or question
on cross-examination. Such offer of proof shall consist of a statement of
the substance of the preferred evidence or that which is expected to be shown
by the answer of the witness.

30.16 Conclusion of Hearing
At the conclusion of the hearing, no other evidence or testimony will
be allowed into the record, except as specified by the Presiding Officer.

30.17 Reopening the Record
At any time prior to a final decision, the Board or Commissioner may
reopen the record for further proceedings consistent with these regulations
provided, however, that the Commissioner shall give notice of such further
proceedings, in writing, to the applicant and intervenors at least 10 days
prior to such proceedings, and further provided that the CommiAsi6ner shall
notify other interested persons and the public in such manner as is appropri-
ate.

30.18 Proposed Brief and Findings
All persons participating in any hearing shall have the right to submit
to the Board w 'ritten proposed findings of fact, briefs, and recommended condi-
tions, provided that such documents shall be submitted in writing not later
than seven days after the close of the hearing or within such other time as
ordered by the Presiding Officer or the Commissioner. This paragraph shall
not apply to the Department staff consultants and counsel, all whom shall
have the right to submit such proposals at any time.

30.19 Oral Argument
Oral argument may be permitted before the Board at the conclusion of
the evidence at a time and place to be fixed by:-the Commissioner.or the Pre-
siding Officer at his discretion.

30.20 Record
A full and complete record shall be kept of all hearings. The record-.-
shall include, but shall not be limited to, the application, supporting doc-
uments, all exhibits, proposed finding of facts and conclusions of the Pre-
siding Officer, if any, staff documents, Board finding of facts and order,
and the recording or transcript of the proceedings.

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-13

REGULATIONS 1-0364

30.21 Proposed Orders

Proposed orders on matters which have been subject to hearing pursuant
o this regulation shall be mailed to all parties at least 14 days before
Board action on such proposed orders, and all parties may provide comments
t

on such proposed orders at least 5 days in advance of Board action thereon.

30.22 Forms

All motions, proposed findings, petitions and briefs, and to the ex-
tent practicable, written testimony filed with the Board except for documents
not susceptible of reproduction in the manner provided or for otherrgpod
cause shown, shall be typewritten or printed on white opaque paper 8k by 11
nches in size and bound typed matter shall. be double spaced. The first page
of each such document shall be headed by the title
i

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

and shall have a caption with (1) the title of the matter in hearing, giving
the name of the applica 'nt, the activity in issue and the location (e.g., in
the matter of Scott Paper Company, Pulp and Paper Mill, Hinckley, Maine), (2)
the Department9s application number (e.g., Site Application #86-0931-36261)
and (3) the title of the document (e.g., Petition to Intervene). The final
page shall be dated and signed.

30.23 Service and Filing of Documents

A. Service

A copy of all motions, petitions, briefs and pre-filed written
testimony, permitted or required to be filed with the Boai@d pursuant
to these regulations, except briefs or proposed findings prepared by
the Department, its consultants or counsel, shall be served upon appli-
cants and intervenors in the proceeding or their representatives in
the manner pursuant to Rule 4 (d) of Maine Rules of Civil Procedure
(Attached as Appendix A).

B. Filing

An original and 15 copies of all such motions, petitions, briefs
and pre-filed testimony shall be filed with the Board by delivery to
the Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta,
Maine 04333

Co Repreeentatives

The first document filed by any person in a proceeding shall

State of Maine 1/78
Department of Environmental Protection

A-14

1-0365 DEPARTME14TAL

designate the name and address of a person on whom service may be made
and to whom all correspondence Irom the Board and staff may be sent.

D. Services Papers by the Board

Except for subpoenas, the Board and Presiding Officer shall assure
that all orders, decisions, notices and other papers issued by the
Board are served upon all parties to the proceeding in the manner
prescribed by this section.

30.24 Ruling

The Commissioner or Presiding Officer may be overruled by a majority
vote of the Board members present on any decision or ruling relating to a
hearing.

30.25 Computation of Time

All computations of time under these regulations shall be in the same
manner as provided by Maine Rules of Civil Ptodedure, Rules 6 (a), (b), and
(e).

30.26 Effective Date

These regulations shall be effective upon the date of filing with the
Secretary of State and shall supersede all previous regulations adopted by
the Board dealing expressly with hearings on applications. These regulations
shall apply to all matters pending before the Board on the effective date
hereof.

After public notice and public hearing on November 21, 1977 the;@above regu-
lation is hereby adopted this 28th day of December, 1977.

BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL"PROTECTION

Henry E. Warren, Chairman

Approved as to form and legality

Gregory W. Sample, Date
Assistant Attorney General

Filed with the Secretary of State on February 8, 1978

&-15

APPENDIX TO SECTION 2.6.3
L%,%%er loilkle
01'ashore 0*11 Industry.@*
June, 1977 tremendous increase in their workload caused by
potato shipments to drought stricken Europe.

This administration has placed a high priority
The first lease sale on Georges Bank is not far on improving the climate for business expansion in
off. We wish to encourage you to think of Maine as Maine and these efforts are succeeding. We have
a potential site for basing your onshore service encouraged an affirmative partnership between
activities. government and industry and stand ready to help
you in any way we can. In return we ask only that
In September, 197S, I stated my administra- you observe the following public interest guidelines
tion's basic policy on OCS development: "Where while developing plans to locate in Maine.
significant new business opportunities are identi-
fied which on balance would produce more gains 1) Inform local officials as early as possible
than losses, the State will seek to work in partner- of your intentions and what the impacts
ship with oil and gas development interests and will be on their communities. Several
coastal communities to bring these opportunities Maine communities including Kittery,
to reality." South Portland, Portland, Bath, .
Rockland, Belfast and Searsport have
In December, 197S, I followed up that notified me of their desire to attract
statement with a letter to leaders of the offshore service and supply bases to their harbors.
industry encouraging them to consider Maine for You will find material on these ports
locating OCS facilities and to cooperate with us in enclosed. These local initiatives have my
developing projects which will be profitable and full support.
which also will meet our environmental standards
and help advance economic goals of the State. 2) Contact state and local officials, espe-
cially directors of the Vocational -Tech ni-
I believe service and supply bases would be cal Institutes to design programs for
economically beneficial, compatible with the training and hiring as much Maine labor
character of the Maine Coast and consistent with as possible.
its seafaring traditions. Maine also has much to
offer the offshore service industry: 3) Communicate specifications of your
material and service needs to suitable
Our many harbors are less congested than Maine companies either directly or
counterparts in Southern New England, and are through the State or municipal develop-
actually closer to eastern tracts on Georges Banks. ment offices.

There are privately owned facilities in these 4) Work with representatives of the fishing
ports which would make excellent temporary bases industry and the Department of Marine
and also numerous sites which could accommodate Resources to identify and resolve poten-
development of permanent installations. tial conflicts with our fishing fleet.

Maine's shipbuilding and repair facilities, Hadley Atlass, the State Development
including the world famaus Bath Iron Works, have Director, will furnish you with further information
a reputation for delivering high quality work, on on Maine. Local contacts are also listed in the
time, I am sure these companies will develop enclosed brochures describing some of Maine's port
services and schedules to respond to your needs for communities.
good fast work.
Welcome to our State.
And most importantly, our coastal labor
force has a depth of experience in the maritime Sincerely yours,
industries. The graduates of the Maine Maritime
Academy have an outstanding reputation for skill
and job longevity. We can also point with pride to
the recent example of the Searsport stevedores JamesB . Longlyt
who responded quickly and efficiently to a Governor

A-16

APPENDIX TO SECTION 2.6.7

STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE GOVER
AUGUSTA, MAINE
04333

JAMES B. LONGLEY
GOVERNOR

December 16, 1977

Mr. James Schlesinger
Department of Energy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Schlesinger:

I have recently been informed of your favorable recommendation
on the Regional Petroleum Reserve (R.P.R.) Program. I would like
to say that I appreciate your support of this program. As you know
our state is extremely dependent of residual oils and it has always
been my, belief that residual supplies can not be compromised. The
20 million barrel storage called for in the R.P.R. would go a long
way, toward protecting the economic vitality of our state during a
petroleum, shortfall .
Again, I appreciate your support of this important project.
if I can be of any assistance in insuring implementation of the
R.P.R. please do not hesitate in letting me know.

Sincerely.,

James B. Longley
Governor

cc: Congressional Delegation
G. Linton, OER

A-17

M It I I 101"1040 19 1 poll% It I I I I ISO M I I I I Im I I a 111#1111 11 It a It I I I I It It I I I I Ito to M I I I I a 1 .4 1 it U MI M It UIj M Ito.# I a It It$ I I I I I I I I I ISO all M It I I 11919 11111 to Ito I I I It I MI a I I I I M I I I I

)IS, T

P/0

0 to 20 30
I C
MILIES

1 0 a S C0

S 0 W
r

WASH I mOTON

A 19A L IR

m So C 0 C

onesboro
W A L 0 0
0 x F 0 A 0 K E of $0 0 C (biotite granite) (12)

Great Wass Isiond
Granite (11)
4 0 1 15@) Gabbro SSE of Addison (10)
A kOROSCOGGII, L I k C 0 L
Central Part of Tunk Lake Pluton (9)
S. End of Lucerne Pluton (7)
C SO a a L C,
0
Sedgewick Granite (8)
Clark Island
Mi. Waldo Pluton (6)
Granite (5)

Westbrook
Bath (Georgetown island) (4)
Pluton (3)

Webhonnet Pluton (2)
A-18
Agamenticus (biotite granite) (1) PLATE I INDEX MAP

TABLE 1
Summary of Site Characteristics

Preliminary Geoliogic Survey of Potential Undergrount Oil Storage Sites In Maine
8 July 1977

Site, Rock TYpe & Age Joints & Foliation Seismicity & Faults Hydrogeology Overburden Thickness Distance to Oil Transfur
& Type Points

Lucerne Pluton; No detailed information 3 hits. & 1 instr. v Potentiomeirier level generally less tan 20' 6 miles to 60' ocean
cource-grained grainile on joints; strong n35w 20 miles to NE; in- 50' to 60' below lodgment till depth in Blue Hill Bay;
356 MY physiographic linea- ferred fault alon nw ground; some mod. high Bucksport OIl farilities
ments contract; at SE and of yield wells within 11 miles to NW
N35W trending neismir pluton

Sedgwick Pluton; Sheet joints 2'-8' No significat aciaml- Potentiomeirir level Generally less than 20' 2 miles to 60' ocean
coarse to medium-tex- apart at surface; vert. city in area; NE trend- 40' below ground; high lodgment till depth Eggmoggin Reath;
tured biotite granite; N40W, N50E, N67E, N67W ing fault along SE con- yield wells to the S slilp transfer also pos-
395 MY joints at 15'h spacing tact sible in Blue Hill Bay

Tunk Lake Pluton; No detailed information NO significant sesmi- Potent level loess than 40' to 60' till & la- A mile to 60' ocean
granite; Devonian on joints; reported to city in area; ENE 20' in core, but deeper cusirine deposits over depth at Sorrento; Maine
be relatively unjointed trending fault along in rock around core; no core, but less than 10' Central RR just to S
in the core SSE edge of pluton reported high yield till on rock around core
wells in pluton

Gabbro SSe of Addison; No detailed information Instrumental 181 V 5 Potentiometric level Up to 60' of lodgement 2 1/2 miles to 60' ocean
gabbro; Devonian on joints; strong NW wells to SE; NE trend- 40' below ground; med. till depth in Western Bay;
physlographic Linea- ing Fundly Fault 8 miles high well yields to E Maine Central Nr 7 miles
ments to SE to N

Great Woss Island Sheet joints 5'-15' Instrumental 181 V 2-1/3 Potentiometric level Less than 40' lodgment 1 mile to 120' ocean
granite; coarse- apart at surface; vert miles to N; NE trending 20' below ground; mod. till and silty marine- depth; no highway to
grained biotite gran- N10E joints at 5'10' Fundy Fault 1 mile to S high yield wells to N laid sediments mainland
ite; Devonian spacing; vert. N90W
joints at 20'+ spacing

Jonesboro Granite sheet joints 6'-5' Instrumental MM V 10 Potentiometric level Less than 20' fo lodg- 5 miles to 60' ocean
pluton;medium- apart at surface; vert. miles 10 S; NE trend- 60' below ground; high ment till depth in Chandler Bay,
textureed blotite gran- joints in NE part of ing Fundy Fault 12 yield wells to NW with- 7 1/2 miles to 30' depth;
ite; Devonian pluton striking N60E, miles to SE in pluton Maine Central RR 3'miles
N50W, & N 70W to N

-15-

TABLE 1
Summry of Site Characteristics

Preliminary Geologic Survey of Potential Underground Oil Storage
8 July 1977

Site, Rock Type & Age Joints & Foliation Spiamirity & Faults Hydrogeology Overburden Thickness Distance to Oil Transfer
& Type Points

Agamenticus Pluton; Sheet joints, widely Historical No V111 30 Potentometric level Up to 40' fine-granted 7's miles to 60' ocean
blnaty granile, alkall spaced vert. N70E, N4OW miles to SSE 60' below ground; mod- depth; Boston 6 Maine RR
syenite; 225 MY Joints, some alloken-
eamentsi in SW portion:
no major Joints In alka-
11 syenite

Webannet Grannite; Generally massive Historical No. VIII 35 Potentemenetric level Potentlometric level mile
granite: Devonian no detailed Information to 40 mils to SSE 60' below ground; mod- 50" belo grppnd; grpund; high
no joints; information to prately high well yields yield ells around con- 20' to 60' of line- to SW & SE wells in vicinity by p several moderately high
yield wells within olu-
-ton
Westbrook Pluton; Sheet joints 4' to 24' Historcial 191 VI 15 Potentlometric level Generally less than Up tp 40' fine-grained 2 1/2 miles to 60'ocean
biotite granite; Apart at surface; local miles to N; Instrumen- 10' no less below 5' of lodgement and till
Devonian ly closely spaced NIOE tal MM vt 75 miles to ground; no high yield ablation till 5 miles to W; onnearby port facilities
joints dipping 55W; SE: referred regional grounds in vicinity
granite often foliated faults trending NE run high
along SE and NW contact
with country rock Generall less than 5'

nearly vert. bedding & Historical NH IV 4 al . Potentiometric level Generally less than ablation till
Cape Elizabeth Inrsa follation mirikingn1 NSE to W; historical MM VI 50' below ground, high 10' of till And silty
(high grade neta- with no no parting on fo 25 miles to N: histor- yield wells around con- marine-laid sediments
morphien); hih grade liation nearly herit- cal MM VI 20 miles to tact with country rock
quartzoer metapoliten; enntal joints several NW; Instrumental MM VI
Ordvoician-Silurian feet apart; widely 20 miles to to S; NNE to Historical MM IV 4 ml.
Spaced nearly vert NW; Instrumental MM V1 to W; historical MM VI
N75W joints 20 miles regional fault 25 miles to N: histori-
Just east of susite3. cal MM VI 20 miles to S; NNE
trending regional fault
just east of subsite 3

Clark Island granite sheet joints 2' to 10' a No significant seismissmion
(St. George Pinion): apart at surface; vert,city or faults nearby

Blutlie-auarovite gran N65W )joints at 10' to,
ite, to med. even- 70' spacing
grained texture; 367 NY;
crushing strength
11,000 to15,000 pol

Mt Wildo Plunton; sheet joints 8" to 8" Foster MN V
tite granite; 125 NY & NGDW at 7OW' At 40' apt 15 ml in NE: NF trens
nit, ramp, strength ring; NNW vert. Joints Inc. National fruit &
10,000 pet devoloped in quirving & miles to NW.

APPENDIX TO SECTION 4.3

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS IN MAINE - AUGUST, 1978

Areawide Clearinghouses in Maine

ANDROSCOGGIN VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Barbara A. Bartle
John j. Jawarski, Executive Director Chairman
70 Court Street
burn, Maine 04210--Tel: 783-9186

EASTERN MID-COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Walter S. Foster
Fourtin Powall, Planning Director Chairman
10 Summer Street, PO Box 228
Rockport, Maine 04856-- Tel:236-8408

GREATER PORTLAND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS George R. Chensh
Osmoond C. Bonsey, Executive Director President
331 Veranda Street
Portland, Maine 04103--Tel: 774-9891

HANCOCK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Dexter Lee
James S. Haskell, Jr., Executive Director Chairman
69 Main Street, PO Box 608
Ellsworth, Maine 04605--Tel: 667-7131

NORTH KENNEBEC REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Dale Watson
Elery Keene, Planning Director Chairman
16 1/2 Benton Avenue
Winslow, Maine 04902 -- Tel: 873-0711

NORTHERN MAINE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Rodney Crockett
James A. Barresi, Executive Director Chairman
McElwain House, 2 Main Street, PO Box 779
Caribou, Maine 04736 -- Tel: 498-8736

PENOBSCOT VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Ann Dyer
Talbot R. Averill, Planning Director Chairman
31 Central Street
Bangor, Maine 04401-- Tel: 947-0529

SOUTHERN KENNEBEC VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Clarence Roth
John B. Forster, Planning- Administrator Chairman
10 Summer Street
Augusta, Maine 04330-- Tel: 662-7146

SOUTHERN MAINE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Daris Reando
Brian N. Chermak, executive Director
PO Box Q, 2 School Street
Sanford, Maine 04073-- Tel: 324-2952 or 324-5780

SOUTHERN MID COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION R. Allen Gaul
Jeffrey Peterson, Acting Executive Director Chairman
52 Front street
Bath, Maine 04530--Tel: 443-9735

WASHINGTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Harold Scholl
Robert L. Crane, Jr., Executive Director Chairman
PO Box 273
Machias, Maine 04654--Tel: 255-8686

SHORELINE EROSION
AND
MITIGATION PLANNING
IN MAINE

L
Fulfilling Requirements of Section 305 (b) 9 of the Coastal Zone Management
Act Amendments of 1976.

CON TEN TS

ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE EROSION IN MAINE

1.0 Assessment of Shoreline Erosion in Maine . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . I
1.1 Coastal Marine Geologic Environments--Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
1.2 Coastal Marine Geologic Envi ronments-- Handbook . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Shoreline Erosion Inventory--Maps . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Atlas of Maine Sandy Beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
T .5 Related Studies and Projects. . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
11.5.1 Beach Vegetation and Oceanic Processes Study of Popham
Beach State Park, Reid State Park Beach, and Small Point
Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5.2 Geological and Botanical Features of Sand Beach Systems
in Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.6 Continued Assessment of Shoreline Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . 4
- o @ .; . . . . . 4
1.6J Pro@ect Review in Accordance with Regulatory Law
T .6.2 Maine's Coastal Program Local Assistance Projects . . . . . . . . 5
1.6.3 Further Assessment Concerning Coastal Flood Plain Management . 5
2. ARTICULATION OF STATE POLICIES PERTAINING TO EROSION

2.0 Articulation of State Policies Pertaining to Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Existing Policies Favoring Non-Control of Shoreline Erosion . . . . . . . 6
2'2 Existing Policies Favoring Nonstructural Control of Shoreline Erosion. 8
2'3 Policy on New Seawalls . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 State Policies Regarding Erosion and Flood Prone.Areas and Coordination
with Federal Programs . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . . . . o . o . . . . 10
3. METHOD FOR DESIGNATING AREAS FOR EROSION CONTROLI MITIGATIONI
AN D/OR RESTORATION AS AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN OR AREAS
FOR PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

3.1 Geographic Areas of Particular Concern . . . . . . . o o . . . . . . 11
3.2 Areas for Preservation and Restoration . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . o . o 11

4. PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF SHORELINE EROSION

4.1 Alteration of Coastal Wetlands Law . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . o . . . . 13
4.2 Shoreland Zoning Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . o o . 14
4.3 Land Use Regulation Commission Law . o . . . . . . o . o . . . . . . . o 15
4o4 Alteration of Rivers, Streams, and Brooks Act . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 15
5. IDENTIFICATION OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES, FUNDING PROGRAMS AND
OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT CAN BE USED TO MEET MANAGEMENT NEEDS

5.0 Identification of the Legal Authorities, Funding Programs and Other
Techniques That Can Be Used to Meet Management Needs . . . . . . . . 16

6. APPENDICES

I
I ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE EROSION IN MAINE 1.
I s
K
1 0
R
I E
L
I I
N
I E
E
I R
0,
I s
I
I I U
N
I A
S"
I s
E
s
I s
IV,
I E -
N
I T
I
I
I
I -

1 .0 ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE EROSION IN MAINE
(Maine's methods for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion)

IN TRODUCTION

Maine's method for the assessment of shoreline erosion includes both the funding of
inventories and erosion studies and the administration of regulatory laws relating to
development in shoreland areas. lnventory work initiated by the Coastal Program
under section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act included several joint efforts
by the State Planning Office and the Maine Geological Survey, Division of Marine
Geology. An inventory of Coasta I Marine Geologic Environments was completed in
1976, and final editing on an accompanying handbook is near completion. The Maine
Coastal Shoreline Erosion Inventory, based in large part on the previous mapping of
environments, was completed in 1977 along with an accompanying report which will be
incorporated as part of the Marine Geologic Environments Handbook.

These *unventories are designed for use by: 1) interested persons, landowners, and
municipalities seeking an introduction to these subjects, 2) municipal and state agencies
seeking to derive policies on erosion and development control in shoreland areas, 3) the
scientific and consulting community when seeking base data for more detailed studies
and management plans, and 4) state, regional programs, and private firms in providing
technical assistance to problem shoreline owners.

I COASTAL MARINE GEOLOGlC ENVIRONMENTS --MAPS

Scale: 1:24,000

Legend: 55 environment types distinquished by: 1) position in tidal zone, 2) size of
sediments and 3) dominant processes.

Data Sources: 1) U.S.G.S. topographic map bases 2) black and white aerial photo-
graphs 3) U.S.G.S. hydrographic charts 4) field studies.

One-hundred and nine maps covering the Maine Coastal Zone were produced. The
maps cover the coastal nearshore from the upland subtidal boundary to shallow, sub-
tidal depths of approximately 8-12 m.

1.2 COASTAL MARINE GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENTS--HANDBOOK

The Handbook of Coastal Marine Geologic Environments of the Maine Coast was wr4ten
to assist land use planners, engineers, geologists, and other interested persons in inter-
preting the marine geologic environment maps. In addition to providing a descirption

of each geologic environment ' this handbook also provides background information
on how these coastal or near shore environments are interrelated to form systems such
as sand beaches or coastal marshes.

One section of the report discusses in detai I human impact on the specific environments
identified on the maps and in the text, including coastal and inland construction and
devegetation. Included in the appendix is a comprehensive description of the most
important erosional and depositional agents (process agents) in the state. The Handbook
of Coastal Marine Geologic Environments is currently undergoing final editing in pre-
paration for printing.

1.3 SHORELINE EROSION INVENTORY--MAPS

Scale: 1:48,000

Legend: See sample map in Appendix.

Data source: 1) coastal marine geologic environment maps 2) historical observations
3) shoreline measurement profiles.

The 29 shoreline erosion maps covering Maine's tidal shoreline define the general' erosion
conditions which presently exist along the entire coast. The purpose of the maps is to
inform the public of the general and relative rates of recessional erosion in order to more
adequately arrive at development solutions which will ultimately conserve shoreline
property, prevent erosion damage to structures, and prevent the unnecessary loss of
shoreline resource property. Areas of stable and accreting shoreline are also shown.

The maps provide information on:

T) The type or types of erosion processes causing erosion at any locality.
2) The maximum amount of shoreline recession which can be expected to occur.
3) The average annual rate of shoreline recession.

1.4 ATLAS OF MAINE SANDY BEACHES

The Coastal Program, recognizing an increasing demand for a comprehensive display of
existing data on Maine sand beaches, and the need for management options and recom-
mendations based on known data, provided funds in the 1977-78 305 program for the
compilation of an 'Atlas of Maine's sandy beaches.

This work, when completed, wi I I complement the previously discussed reports on
erosion and marine environments with more detailed data displays and analysis for all

of Maine's significant sandy beaches.

The management recommendations for each beach may be utilized by shorefront owners
and towns, as well as the state, in developing special management policies, regulations,
or mitigation programs where such are deemed necessary. The Atlas, as a whole, can
serve as the basis of state, local, or regional efforts at public education on general and
local beach processes and erosion mitigation options for specific localities.

The specific elements comprising the Atlas include the following:

1) General discussion of natural dynamic processes active in Maine's beach systems and the
influence of man's activities on these processes.

2) Presentation of specific data elements for each beach system as follows:
(Approximately 36 beaches)

a) prevailing and dominant wind directions
b) cross sectional morphology
c) plant community structure and distribution
d) history of storm damage and flood levels
e) textural characteristics of sand for each beach physiographic division
histograms of sand size classes and graphs of textural statistical measures
include mean grain size, sorting, skewness, and kurtosis
g) ground level and oblique aerial photographs
h) shoreline change maps
i) natural physiographic division maps
j) identification of unusual or outstanding features
k) a set of beach use and management options

3) A state-wide tabulation of beach erosion and accretion histories from historical data.

4) A set of beach use and management recommendations for each beach and beach system.
For each beach, then, two maps, three tables, and eight diagrams will be presented in
the data compilation, in addition to a text which identifies specific and regional aspects
and lists of management options and recommendations.

This report is presently in preparation for the Coastal Program by the Department of
Oceanography, University of Maine at Orono, and wi I I be completed by September
30, 1978.

1.5 RELATED STUMES AND PROJECTS

Described below are projects which totally or in part deal with coastal erosion or oceanic
process at particular localities in the state. Although designed and supported for a

specific use or location(s), projects such as these: 1) provide detailed information
required for implementable management plans, 2) identify significant or unique
natural features, and 3) provide a model and reference for future work, management
planning, and policy formulation.

1 .5.1 Beach Vegetation and Oceanic Processes Study of Popham Beach State Park,
Reid State Park Beach, and Smal I Point Beach.

This study, prepared in 1977 under a cooperative agreement between the Maine Depart-
ment of Conservation and the Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A., provides detailed
description of three Maine beaches, and compares two state recreational beaches to
an undeveloped beach system in a natural condition. Plant communities and oceanic
processes and dynamics are discussed for each beach, and suggestions for long term
management are included.

1 .5.2 Geological and Botanical Features of Sand Beach Systems in Mc3ine.
This report summarizes the results of recent geological and botanical investigations of
Maine's sand beach systems. The results have provided the basis for a Process- Response
Model for the swash-aligned beach systems in Maine. Compilations of basic information
in the report include: geological and botanical criteria of significance, lists of coastal
sand dune plant species and associations, and a list of all sand beaches in Maine.
From 29 beaches which met the significance criteria, 27 were field checked, described,
and recommended for evaluation by the Critical Areas Program.
This report, in final draft form, was prepared for Maine's Critical Areas Program by
the Department of Oceanography, University of Maine at Orono, in 1978.

1.6 CONTINUED ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE EROSION

1 .6.1 Project Review in Accordance with Regulatory Laws.
Through the administration of state laws requiring permits for certain types of activities
in shoreland areas, state and local officials are made aware of localized erosion problems
or potential problems through the permitting process. Detailed drawings of the site,
along with other information concerning soil types, vegetation, etc. provide a record
of conditions existing on the site. On-site inspections may be made by state personnel
and municipal officials, supplementing the information and photographic evidence
provided in applications.

Permit application files provide the stater and any other interested person with a
permanent inventory of erosion control activities. Regulated erosion control activities
and other activities regulated by these laws likely to cause erosion include: seawalls,
retaining walls, and other similar structures not replacing 'grandfathered' structures
of the same size, design and material; dredging or fi I ling activities in shoreland areas;
timber harvesting and related harvesting activities when minimum standards are exceeded;
certain types of construction.

T .6.2 Maine's Coastal Program Local Assistance Projects.

By making funding available to coastal towns for erosion studies, Maine's Coastal Program
can supply the incentive, technical assistance, and funding for towns desiring to study
and assess the effects of erosion and possible means for mitigation.

Through the local assistance segment of Maine's Coastal Program, two coastal erosion
projects have been submitted for funding approval. One project includes the communities
of Saco, Scarboro, and Old Orchard Beach, which propose to jointly sponsor a beach
erosion and reconnaissance study including plans for any stabilization, if necessary.
Another town, Falmouth, similarly proposes to undertake a study and identify and prioritize
coastal erosion problems and possible steps for stabilization.

1 .6.3 Further Assessment Concerning Coastal Flood Plain Management.

Two severe 'northeaster' storms occuring in the winter of 1977 inflicted heavy flood and
wave damage along the Maine coast, particularly along the developed beaches in the
southern part of the state.

Issues raised concerning rebuilding or replacing both dwellings and seawalls in these
affected areas have prompted further state study into this matter.

@n March of this year Governor Langley directed his Committee on Coastal Development
and Conservation to address the issue of coastal flood plain management and prepare,
by January T , 1979, a policy report on this subject. The Governor requested that the
report contain recommendations for executive, legislative, local, and federal cooperation,
and that any final recommendations and proposed legislation be subject to review by the
general public prior to submission.

ARTICULATION OF STATE POLOCIES PER TAINING TO EROSION

2.0 ARTICULATION OF STATE POLICIES PERTAINING TO EROSION
(including policies regarding preferences for non-structural, structural,
and/or no controls)

Policies developed in the State of Maine concerning shoreline erosion have focused
on: * 1) the prevention of new development in areas where erosion is uncontrollable
or where contro@ measures are likely to have adverse impacts, (such as flood prone
areas and unstable soi Is), 2) preventing or controlling erosion likely to occur in
areas suitable for development, and 3) assuring that where erosion threatens pre-
existing development, proposed structural mitigation measures are appropriate and
are least impacting on the surrounding environment.

AH of the policies cont ained in this section are enforceable. The laws providing for
this enforcement are described in Sections 4 and 5 of this report as wel I as in the Maine
Coastal Program document in Section 7 and Appendix F. The four laws are Shoreland
Zoning and Land Use Regulation Commission (both deal with tidal and inland shoreland);
Alteration of Coastal Wetlands (tidal shoreline), and Stream Alteration (inland shoreline).
Numbers accompanying the policies in this report coincide with policy numeration in
Section 6 of the Coastal Program document.

2.1 EXISTING POLICIES FAVORING NON-CONTROL OF SHORELINE EROSION

In the case of state policies prohibiting new development in 1) above, the net effect
is essentially one of non-control of shoreline erosion, since by precluding new develop-
ment in unstable shoreline areas, the need for erosion control itself is precluded except
in instances where the loss of land or the impacts of erosion on natural surroundings are
of concern.

The poNcies presented below prohibit certain types of development in shoreland areas
because of their vulnerability to the effects of erosion or inducement of it, either by
zoning restrictions, permissable uses, or permit approval criteria. Since these policies
are derived from the core laws of Maine's Coastal Program, they are enforceable, and
can be found in Section 6 of the Coastal Program document.

9 Assure that commercial and industrial development planned 12 M.R.S.A. SS 4811
for areas within 250 feet of high water is located on sites Shoreland Zoning
with suitable soils that have been designated as General and
Development arecs. the Shoreland Guidelines

14 Encourage the relocation of development presently in Land Use Regulation
flood prone areas and areas susceptible to flood damage, to Commission
nonflood prone areas; require that new building be con- Comprehensive Plan
structed in nonflood prone areas.

34 Provide protection for coastal wetlands from 12 M.R.S.A 4811
residential, commercial, and industrial develop- Shoreland Zoning and
ment, by designating these areas as Resource Guidlines
Protection districts under Shoreland Zoning.

37 Designate areas within 250' of high water having 12 M.R.S.A 4811
slopes of greater than 25% (or unstable soils that Shorland Zoning
are subject to slumping or severe erosion) as pro-
tection areas and use these areas for natural resource
management activities.

39 Assure stable soils and sediment-free waters by 12 M.R.S.A 4811
requiring no tilling of agricultural soils in areas Shorland Zoning

within 50 feet of ponds or lakes or removal of
vegetation without replacement in areas within
50 feet of high water mark.

38 Assure stable soils and sediment free waters 12 M.R.S.A 4811
by conducting filling, grading, and other earth- Shoreland Zoning
moving activities within 250 feet of high water,
in conformance with established erosion prevention
measures.

44 Designate 100-year flood plain areas (or areas 12 M.R.S.A 4811
having recent flood plain soils) that are within 250 Shoreland Zoning
feet of normal high water as protection areas and use
for appropriate nonintensive uses, such as forestry,
agriculture, open space, recreation areas, etc.

45 Use flood prone areas, in the unorganized areas, LURC
for natural resource and agricultural management so Comprehensive Plan
as to minimize flood damage to development uses.

46 Consider natural sites of significant scenic or 12 M.R.S.A 4811
esthestic value, within 250 feet of high water, as Shoreland Zoning
areas that should be designated as protection areas;
these areas to be used for natural resource protection
and management such as forest management, non-
intensive recreation, wildlife management, agri-
culture, etc.

48 Assure, in the unorganized areas, the pro- Comprehensive Plan
tection of areas containing unique, rare, or
critical landforms, water resources, vegetation,
animals or archaeology, so as to preserve their
scientific, ecological and educational values.

2.2 EMSTING POLICIES FAVORING NONSTRUCTURAL CONTROL OF SHORELINE
EROSION

Where development is allowed in suitable shoreline areas, or where development already
exists, state poRcies protecting the natural character of the shoreline, the natural flow
of water, and fish and wildlife habotatfavor nonstructural methods for erosion control.
Increasing concern in protecting these natural elements, and broadened experience in
successful nonstructural forms of erosion control (such as limited use, revegetation, and
replenishment) have lead this to be the preferred type of erosion mitigation. In situations
where nonstructural control of erosion has proven unsuccessful or is not practical, these
same policies favor those types and designs of structural erosion control least impacting
on the surroundings.

Thus, while the policies listed below favor nonstructural methods of erosion control by
protecting, where possible, natura I shoreline and water characteristics, they also insure
that structural methods protect these same characteristics wher6ver possible.

s
8Assura, through a permit procedure, that development 38 M.R.S.A. s 21-11
activities proposed for coastal wetlands are located and Coastal Watlands
conducted so that the value of these areas for wildlife
habitat, recreational and navigational use, natural storm
w,ater storage, and erosion control is maintained.

"I A @sure that al I development in shoreland areas is con- 12 iM. R. S A. 's 48''11
ducted in such a manner that safe and healthful conditions Shoreland Zoning
are maintained, water quallit,/ is maintained, aquatic, bird,
and o@her wildlife habitat is conserved and structures are
pic-ced so as to conserve shore cover, water access, and
points of natural beauty.
31 Assure, @hrough a permit procedure, that a ctivities 38 M.R. S.A. 471
in cocistal wetlands permit the natural flow of any Coastal Wetlands
waters.

32 Assure that recreational and navigatio nal uses in 38 M.R.S.A. 1471
coos'-al wetlands are not unreasonably restricted by Coasto I Wetlands
permanent structures.

36) Assure the stability and value of coastal wetlands 38 M.R.S.A. 1471
as sil-Orm runoff re@ention areas and nalural sieves/ Coastal Wetlan*ds
by requiring permits For activities thay May cause
erosion.

40 Assure that unreasonable soil erosion does not 12 M.R.S.A. �� 2206-2217
result from development activities adjacent to Stream Alff.:@rafion
i
rivers, streams, or brooks by requiring a permit
for such activi ties.

4-1 Utilize the ccpability of "he soil to support de- 12 M R. S.A. � 681
velopment so as to determine its suitability for Coast Land Use .RegUlation
development, in the unorganized areas of the Low

2.3 POLICY ON NEW SEAWALLS

The Board of Environmental Protection recently adopted a policy whereby it will not
normally approve applications for the construction of new seawalls or similar obstruc-
tions within the Wetlands Act jurisdiction, on or adjacent to a sand beach or erodable
shore. The full text of this policy is included in the Appendix to this report.
Although this policy is limited to the construction of new seawalls, its impact, when
coupled with that of local shoreland zoning ordinances, conservation easements, and
public acquisition of undeveloped sand beaches adds additional state leverage in
preserving these areas and protecting the state's interest in this resource.
Along developed areas of coastal shoreline, the beaches in southern Maine and the
wetlands fringing cities such as Portland, existing policies, including this policy
pertaining to seawalls, do not preclude the opportunity to repair or replace existing
structures, provided they conform to regulations adopted by the Board.

2.4 STATE POUCIES REGARDING EROSION AND FLOOD PRONE AREAS AND
COORDINATION WITH FEDERAL PROGRAMS

On March 4, 1968, Maine's Governor directed all heads of executive agencies, depart-
ments and commissions to provide leadership in encouraging a broad and unified effort
to prevent the uneconomic uses and development of the State's flood prone areas and
in particular, to lessen the risk of flood losses in connection with state-owned lands and
installations and state-insured or state-approved or supported improvements.
Since the time of that executive order, Maine has had further opportunity to coordinate
with federal programs designed to prevent improper development in flood and erosion
prone areas and protect life and property existing in these areas.

Zoning maps, compiled by individual towns and adopted in accordance with State
guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning, provide the opportunity for coordination
with the more recent mapping of Flood Hazard Boundary maps undertaken by the
Federal Insurance Administration under the National Flood Insurance Program. While
local shoreland zoning extends a minimum of 250 feet from the waters edge (see Sections
3 and 4 of this report and Section 7 of Maine's Coastal Program), federal provisions
provide for regulation in all flood and erosion prone areas which are identified on -
FHBM's, regardless of setback, thus furthering and enlarging the area of control for
most towns.

Copies of flood insurance maps for the state are retained by the Department of Civil
Emergency Preparedness, which is the State Coordinating Agency for the Flood
Insurance Program. The State Planning Office also maintains a complete file of these
maps, as well as a complete file of all Municipal Shoreland Zoning maps.

METHOD FOR DESIGNATING AREAS FOR EROSION CONTROL, MITIGATION,
AND/OR RESTORATION AS AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN OR AREAS FOR
PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION.

3.0 METHOD FOR DESIGNATING AREAS FOR EROSION CONTROL, MITIGATION,
AND/OR RESTORATION AS AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN OR AREAS FOR
PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

3.1 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

Maine's Coastal Program considers all land areas within 250 feet of the normal high water
mark of any great pond, river, or salt water body, as geographic areas of particular con-
cern. These some areas are also those most prone to erosion due to their immediate
proximity to flowing water, the cause of erosion. Activities related to recreation,
development, and resource harvesting may all induce accelerated erosion in these shore-
land areas, even those naturally stable. Naturally unstable soils in shoreland areas, such
as steep slopes or flood prone areas, require additional protection measures to insure
shoreline integrity.

The Shoreland Zoning Law and the Land Use Regulation Commission, in its jurisdiction,
provide the state with the means to control and guide development in these areas assuring
that their value is not unreasonably diminished by erosion. A complete description of
the Areas of Particular Concern and how they are managed in Maine can be found in
Section C of Maine's Coastal Program Appendix.

3.2 AREAS FOR PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

Maine's Coastal Program considers Class A waters, resource protection districts within
250 feet of shoreline and certain specified protection districts under Land Use Regulation
Commission (LURC's) jurisdiction as areas for preservation or restoration. These areas
have been designated under existing state law for the purpose of preserving or .restoring
them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values.

The criteria for designating these areas are either found in the statutes under description
of the area to be protected, or are further specified in model ordinance or promulgated
standards. Areas having sustained slopes of greater than 25%, or unstable soil subject
to slumping, mass movement, or severe erosion, when two acres or more in size are
designated as resource protection districts under the State's shoreland guidelines. Areas
within 250 feet from tidal or flowing waters, precipitous slopes, and flood plains in
unorganized territories along the coast are protected under LURC statutes. A more
complete description of Areas for Preservation and Restoration is included in Section D
of Maine's Coastal Program Appendix.

Generally, restoration activities in shoreline areas are initiated at the private or
municipal level and the effect of the LURC law and shoreland zoning ordinances is to
assure restoration measures are conducted properly. These same laws also serve to pro-
tect fragile shoreline from unwise development through zoning and permitting authorities.

In adopting these specific shoreline areas as Geographic Areas of Particular Concern
and Areas for Preservation and Restoration, the Maine Coastal Program recognizes
these areas of importance to the state and the need to protect them from erosion and
restore those valuable areas lost to erosion.

I
.1 PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF SHORELINE EROSION 4
I s
1 8
R
I E
L
I I
N
I E
E
I R
0
1 s
I
1. u
N
I A
s
I s
E
I s
s
m
I E -
N
I T
I
I
I
I

4.0 PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING THE EFFECTS OF SHORELINE EROSION

INTRODUCTION

Maine's procedure for managing the effects of erosion, including studying and
evaluating ways to control or lessen the impact of erosion and ways to restore areas
adversely affected by such erosion, are prescribed in the policies, regulations,
administrative guidelines, and review and approval criteria adopted for carrying out
and enforcing the policies presented in Section 2 and their respective laws presented
in Section 5. These laws are:

Alteration of Coastal Wetlands
Municipal Shoreland Zoning
Land Use Regulation Commission
Stream Alteration

A comprehensive treatment of the administration, history, and uses and areas regulated
by these laws is contained in Section 7 of Maine's Coastal Program, and the ful I text of
the laws appears in the Appendix to that document. Discussion of these laws in this
section is limited to describing how these laws form the basis for managing the effects
of erosion and evaluating methods for its mitigation.

The problems of erosion have long been recognized, a fact reflected in the fact that all
four of these laws deal directly with means for managing and preventing this type of
resource loss. Both the Municipal Shoreland Zoning and LURC Laws provide for the
identification and protection of erodable shoreline through an enforceable zoning process
coupled with permitted, prohibited and permit regulated uses within such areas. Since
LURC jurisdiction applies only to unorganized territories, these two laws do not overlap.

Likewise, although the Stream Alteration and Alteration of Coastal Wetlands Laws perform
a similar function in managing and assessing shoreline erosion, Stream Alteration Low
affects only non-tidal waters, while Coastal Wetlands Lawis limited to tidal shoreline.
These laws; however, do overlap with the zoning laws mentioned above, but provide
an important opportunity for state overview and management of shoreline erosion, its
effect, and the measures utilized to control it.

4.1 ALTERATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS LAW

The alteration of Coasta@ Wetlands Law is administered through a permit process'. Pro-
posals for development within coastal wetlands, including structural erosion control
measures, must be approved by the Department or Board of Environmental Protection.

Permit applications include a complete description of the project and project area.
Applications are reviewed by appropriate state, local, and federal agencies as well
as the review staff of the Department of Environmental Protection.

Applicants must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the staff, Board, and any reviewing
agency that the proposal will not:
1) unreasonably interfere with existing recreational and navigational areos
2) cause unreasonable soil erosion
3) unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of waters
4) nor unreasonably harm wildlife or freshwater, estuarine, or marine fisheries
This application review process assures a procedure for state study and evaluation for
activities in coastal wetlands regulated under this law. Activities found to pose a
significant impact on the environment, such as unreasonable erosion or obstruction of
natural water flow, may be prevented from occuring in a wetland area. In many cases,
erosion likely to be caused by a proposal may be prevented by reasonable plan alterations
or conditions enforced in the permit. From the nature of the review critieria proposals
for permanent erosion control structures, such as retaining walls and rip-rap, are generally
only allowed in developed areas where natural replenishment processes no longer exist or
are inadequate and where no other satisfactory means of nonstructural control is possible.
Replacement of erosion control structures is limited to the size of the original structure,
and is generally limited to the same type of material. Since present administration of
the Coastal Wetlands Law, as wel I as the other laws described in this amendment, preclude
new development to occur in areas where large structural erosion control measures are
required, the need forsuch structures is connected to the necessary replacement of original
structures or protection to existing shoreland development. Replacement is limited to
the dimensions and materials used in the original structure.
State review assures both the adequacy and need for proposed structural erosion control
measures, and the minimization of adverse impacts associated with them.

4.2 SHORELAND ZONING ACT

The Shoreland Zoning Act addresses erosion associated with land use activities occuring
within 250 feet of any fresh or tidal shoreline through the establishment of protection
districts and permit standards.
The State's shoreland guidelines require that Resource Protection Districts include the
following:

1) inland and coastal wetlands
2) floodplains as defined by the 100-year flood or flood of record
3) areas having sustained slopes of greater than 25%, or unstable soi I
subject to slumping, mass movement, or severe erosion, when these
areas are 2 acres or more in size.

One of the major purposes of the Resource Protection District is to prevent erosion by
prohibiting all residential, commercial or industrial structures. Development prohibition
in Resource Protection Districts has been successful due largely to local support in adopt-
ing and enforcing the zoning regulations.

Where development is allowed in shoreland areas, in either the limited Recreational -
Residential or General Development District, erosion control is afforded through a
permit procedure. Proposed uses are reviewed to ensure that they:

1) do not result in erosion or sedimentation,,
2) conserve shoreland vegetation and,
3) avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use.

Such review insures that shorelines retain their natural capacity to prevent erosion, and
that where necessary, proper methods of erosion control are taken.

4.3 LAND USE REGULATION COMMISSION LAW

The Land Use Regulation Commission Law regulates shoreline areas through zoning* and
permit requirements. LURC jurisdiction includes 5% of the coastal area.

Shoreland areas and submerged lands are placed within appropriate Protection Districts
under the LURC Zoning process. Once zoned Protection, these areas may undergo
only limited development and only in conformance with established standards or upon
permit approval.

The standards and criteria for approval for limited development permit approval allow
only proposed land uses which will neither cause unreasonable erosion nor be subject
to erosion hazards associated with unstable shorelines, flooding, or other erosional
effects.

4.4 ALTERATION OF RIVERS, STREAMS, AND BROOKS ACT

The Alteration of Rivers, Streams, and Brooks Act provides for state review of all
structures erected above the head of tide in, on, over, or adjacent to any river,
stream, or brook in the coastal area.

One of the major criteria for permit approval under this act is the applicant's demon-
stration that the proposed activity will not cause soil erosion. Approved activities;
therefore, have either been shown to not cause soil erosion, or have been modified
through permit conditions in order to prevent erosion.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES, FUNDING PROGRAMS AND
OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT CAN BE USED TO MEET MANAGEMENT NEEDS

5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES, FUNDING PROGRAMS AND
OTHER TECHNIQUES THAT CAN BE USED TO MEET MANAGEMENT NEEDS

Legal authorities existing within the State for managing coastal shoreline erosion include
all of the laws associated with policies included in Section 2 of this amendment, and
the areas described in Section 3. These laws are:

1) Shoreland Zoning Law
2) Subdivision Low
3) Land Use Regulation Commission Law
4) Stream Alteration Law
5) Coastal Wetlands Law

Fu I I texts for each of these laws are included in Section F of the Maine Coastal Program
Appendix.

Funding programs within the State that can be used to meet management needs in erosion
control include:

1) continued administration of the above laws,
2) local, state and federal funding of shoreline erosion studies when deemed
necessary, and
3) local, state and federal funding of management measures for erosion
migitation, control, or restoration and preservation of eroded areas.

In light of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy preference for nonstructural control
of beach erosion and the recent policy determination by the Maine Board of Environmental
Protection that seawalls are unfavorable alternatives to erosion mitigation, erosion control
projects, whether federally or locally financed are likely to place greater emphasis on
nonstructural forms of erosion control.

Through Section 306 funding of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Maine Coastal
Program would allow coastal towns the opportunity to study, at the local or regional
level, suitable erosion management alternatives in light of the Coastal Zone Management
Act guidelines for funding, state policy and regulation, and local preference.

APPENDICES

BOARD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
POLICY ON NEW SEAWALLS

The Board of Environmental Protection has reviewed numerous
applications for ocean seawalls over a five-year period in accord
with its responsibility under 38 M.R.S.A. 471, Alterations of
Coastal Wetlands. The Board has reviewed the plans, conducted
extensive hearings, and received substantial information and
expert opinion on the impact of seawalls on sand beaches and
adjacent natural resources or man-made structures. As a result
we conclude that the impact of seawalls or similar structures on
sand beaches normally includes the following:

1. Physical obstructions in the inter-tidal zone which obstruct
public rights in that zone.

2. The loss of sand and changes to the slope of the beach in
front of the seawall.

3. The likelihood of rubble or debris being scattered across
the beach as a result of a deteriorating seawall.

4. The significant mcdification to normal patterns of water
movement and the erosion and accretion of sand which such
structures create.

On the basis of this experience, the Board concludes that it will
normally be unable to make the necessary favorable findings of
fact set forth in the Wetlands law, when an application is made for:

1) a new seawall or similar obstruction,
2) within the Wetlands Act jurisdiction,
3) on or adjacent to a sand beach or erodable shore.

In these circumstances, the Board expects that its findings concerning
interference with recreational and navigational uses, interference
with the natural flow of waters, and the resulting soil erosion would
all be unfavorable. A permit must be denied if any one required
finding is unfavorable.

Should an applicant believe that his proposal is unique in some way
that allows fulfillment of the criteria set forth in 38 M.R.S.A. 474,
he is encouraged to file the application for Board review and action.

This policy does not apply to situations covered by Board Ptegulation
322, by which the Board has previously exempted from perrrLit require-
ments the repair or replacement of existing structures in the coastal
wetlands, under limited conditions. Persons wishing to repair or .
replace any existing structure in the Wetlands area should obtain a
copy of the regulation.

May 1978

MAINE SHORELINE EROSION INVENTORY
1977

EROSION TYPE AND RATE CATEGORY

Large-scale slide erosion; catastrophic loss of shoreline ray
exceed 20', sometimes reaching 100'

Shoreline erosion by wave action; shoreline retreat may exceed
20' annually

Shoreline erosion by mass wasting and wave erosion: shoreline
retreat probably does not exceed 5' annually

Shoreline erosion by wave action only; shoreline retreat
averages annually but may exceed 5' locally due
to storm wave erosion

Shoreline erosion by mass wasting and wave erosion; shoreline
retreat averages less than 1' annually

Shoreline erosion by wave action; no shoreline retreat due to
man-made protection devices but lowering of intertidal substrate
surface

Shoreline erosion by current action; retreat rate unknown

No shoreline erosion or accretion

Shoreline accretion; slow vertical accretion above mean high
water but subject to flooding during storm periods, and lateral
accretion by current action, wave or wind deposition of sediment
but subject to erosion or flooding during storms or floods

LOS Limit of survey

Rates of erosion are based on actual field Measurements at selected
shoreline localities within the past five years. Measured rates at
selected localities have been extrapolated to other shorelines on the
basis of general shoreline-upland slopes, surficial sediment type,
vegetation type, and wave energy levels.

Rates of erosion are generalized to indicate relative levels of erosion
hazards. Detailed site-inspection is necessary to determine actual
erosion rates and frequencies.

o
o' o
o oo"o....
.0
o. ......
o ooo
.1 o o
ool oo
o. o*
o 'o
@ooI V. o
o
o I

o
Jo
0

o
o/"

o
o. *o
oo ooo
o
o o: @x

o
o*
o
o.

% \04.

0/,z
4f

MAINE SHORELINE EROSION INVENTORY
1977

SCALE
Proufs Neck 4000 0 4000 8000 1200(
1 6iii 6iiii
Feet

I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
3 6668 14102 7278 1 -