LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MAINE t May D, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: LOCAL LEAGUE PRESIDENTS, E.Q./LAND USE CHAIR, cc STATE BOARD FROM: BARBARA R. ALEXANDER, E.Q. CHAIR RE: MAINE"s COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT APPLICATION, AN UPDATE Background. During the summer and fall of 1977, I followed the development of Maine's Coastal Zone Management "306" application to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The federal law both planning and implementation funds for a coastal zone program if it is approved by NOAA under the guidelines set down in the federal law. The Maine State Planning Office has had planning money for four years and now proposes a CZM plan to receive about $1.5 million for its implementation. I testified for the League at a public hearing on the Draft Application in November, 1977, following a series of meetings and correspondence on the development of the application. After an analysis of the Coastal Zone Management Act, the NOAA regulations, our EQ and land use positions, I raised the following major criticisms of the proposed program: (1) By trying to meet the federal requirements with our existing laws (i.e., asking for no legislative improvements in our management of the coastal zone), and by proposing to give two-thirds of the anticipated federal funds to local communities to conduct a wide range of planning and management activities, the application failed to take advantage of the opportunities offered to make improvements in the present program. In brief, the federal program requires the State to examine the coast, pick out the areas of special concern and vulnerability ("areas of particular concern" OR APCs), and demonstrate how priorities of uses are established to protect or make use of the areas of particular concern. Maine's program lacks this kind of approach except with regard to the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Law, the guidelines for which establish zones within which certain activities can take place (i.e., establishes priorities of uses). Both the Site Location of Development Law and the Wetlands Law require a permit for activity to take place, but do not establish priorities; projects are viewed on a case-by-case basis and approved on the basis of vague statutory performance standards. The issee: Does Maine's program contain the necessary statutory authority to meet the requirements of the minimum federal guidelines? (2) Two significant improvements in the administration of present state and local daws were ignored in the Draft Application: the need for regulations to define more specifically the often vague statutory requirements of such Maine laws as Site Location of Development, Wetlands Protection, and Subdivision Regulation Law; and the need for more and better enforcement of the existing laws at both state and leoal level. The issue: Should the Maine CZM Application commit the state to the development of regulations to more accurately predict the type of activities permitted on the coast and should a priority be put on the use of the federal funds to establish better enforcement programs at the state and local level? (3) The Draft Application failed to include the following important Maine laws in the description of Maine's coastal program: Air Pollution Law; Oil Conveyance and Discharge Prevention Act; Solid Waste Management; Coastal Islands Trust Act; and Alteration of Rivers and Streams Act. One of the benefits of the CZM Act is that once the federal government approves Maine's program, all federal activities must be conducted in conformance with the program. By leaving out many pertinent -2- Maine programs that affect the coastal zone, Maine was passing up an important opportunity with regard to influencing future federal activities in Maine's coastal zone. Issue: Should Maine's CZM Program be comprehensive? (4) The Draft Application failed to focus on the development and control of the infrastructure of development which can have a crucial impact on the character of the coastal zone. No discussion was given in the Draft of such important growth-inducing projects as highways (exempt from the Site Location Law), waste treatment and solid waste facilities, 208 planning, HUD 701 comprehensive planning, etc. Issue: How should the State control the planning and development of infrastructure in the coastal zone management plan? (5) The Draft Application set forth very vague criteRiA by which local communities could receive the federal funds; the criteria which were put forth related primarily to good grant management and failed to link the coastal zone management policies with the grant program. Issue: How much state control should exist with regard to how the federal funds are spent to implement the CZM plan? (6) The Draft proposed two-thirds of the available federal money should go to local communities; only $100,000 was specifically allocated to sta te agencies, even though the Saate DEP and LURC are responsible for implementation of the bulk of the state laws that impact on the coastal zone. The polifical reasons for this division are not hard to find. The tremendous backlash against a previous CZM application that was withdrawn in 1975 because of local opposition, accompanied with the growing political movement for local control (education, environment, etc) , clearly affected the direction of the Draft Application. Issue: Should an increased portion of the federal funds go to state agencies? Final Application and DEIS. The Draft Application has been revised in some respects and has now been published in final form for federal approval. Accompanying the application is a Draft Environmental Impact Statement required under the National Environmantal Policy Act for any significant federal activity (here it is the proposed approval of the Maine CZM program by NOAA). Three public hearings have been scheduled for the DEIS: May 22, 1978, Hampden Town Hall, Hampden; May 23 rd, Rm. 113, State Office Bldg. Augusta; May 24th, Rm. 318, Greater Portland Cog, Portland, all at 7:30 P.M. This is the final public opportunity to influence the program prior to NOAA approval or disapproval and the receipt of federal funds. Final comments in writing are due by June 12, 1978. The basic changes in the application include the following: (1) The addition of five state laws to the CZM program: Alteration of Rivers and Streams; Air Pollution Law; Solid Waste Management; Oil Discharge Prevention and Pollution Control Law; and Marine Resources Law. (2) The addition of more environmental and natural resource policy criteria to the funding of local projects. (3) A new section on the coordination of infrastructure with development policies, with new policies adopted by the Maine Department of Transportation to coordinate their proposals with DEP and SPO.