Opinion ID: 1996165
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wildlife

Text: [¶ 21] The NRPA provides that a person must obtain a permit from the Department before beginning construction if the activity is located in, on or over any protected natural resource, which includes a significant wildlife habitat. 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-B(8), 480-C(1). A significant wildlife habitat includes habitats of species appearing on the State list of threatened species. [9] 38 M.R.S. § 480-B(10). Before being granted a permit, the applicant must show that the activity proposed will not unreasonably harm any significant wildlife habitat . . . [or] travel corridor. 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(3). [¶ 22] Agency rules provide that [e]ven if the activity has no practicable alternative, and the applicant has minimized the proposed alteration as much as possible, the application will be denied if the activity will have an unreasonable impact on . . . subject wildlife. 2 C.M.R. 06 096 335-2 § 3(C) (2010). An unreasonable impact means that one or more of the standards of the NRPA at 38 M.R.S.[] § 480-D will not be met. Id. In making this determination, the Department considers the area of the significant wildlife habitat affected by the activity, including areas beyond the physical boundaries of the project and the cumulative effects of frequent minor alterations of significant wildlife habitats. Id. [¶ 23] Contrary to FOLL's contention, the Board did consider the impact of the project on area wildlife for purposes of the NRPA, finding that the project as proposed will not have an unreasonable impact on significant wildlife habitats under its rules and the NRPA and requiring that post-construction monitoring be performed to determine, avoid, and minimize negative impact. See 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(3); 2 C.M.R. 06 096 335-2 § 3(C) (2010). The Board reasonably relied on the opinion of the MDIFW included in the record which, though acknowledging that certain wildlife, particularly nesting eagles outside the project area, could be negatively impacted by the project, ultimately advised only that the project be monitored post-construction. FOLL has not demonstrated that there is no competent evidence to support the Board's findings. See Kelley v. Me. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 2009 ME 27, ¶ 27, 967 A.2d 676, 685. [¶ 24] Having reviewed the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the testimony and exhibits before it, the agency could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did, Int'l Paper Co., 1999 ME 135, ¶ 29, 737 A.2d at 1054, we affirm the Board's factual findings as supported by competent record evidence.