Opinion ID: 1536299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Balancing of Environmental and Energy Considerations

Text: [¶ 20] SOS also contends that the Board failed to quantify or value the benefits and impacts of dam removal on the environment and energy in any systematic or consistent manner, and that the Board's conclusion is not based on all of the criteria set out in section 636(7). [¶ 21] The Board may approve a permit pursuant to the MWDCA when the applicant demonstrates that [t]he advantages of the project are greater than the direct and cumulative adverse impacts over the life of the project based upon [six delineated] considerations. 38 M.R.S. § 636(7). [4] Pursuant to section 636(7), the Department must make a written finding of fact with respect to the nature and magnitude of the impact of the project on each of the considerations . . . and a written explanation of their use of these findings in reaching their decision. 38 M.R.S. § 636(7). The applicable agency regulation states: Determining whether the advantages of the project are greater than it[ ]s adverse impact requires attaching values or weight to the project's various benefits and harms. 3 C.M.R. 06 096 450-7 § (5)(A)(8)(A) (1999). [¶ 22] When, as here, the statute specifically states that the agency must make a written finding of fact with respect to the nature and magnitude of the impact of the project on each of the considerations . . . and a written explanation of their use of these findings in reaching their decision, 38 M.R.S. § 636(7), we review the adequacy of the findings as a matter of law. See Chapel Rd. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Town of Wells, 2001 ME 178, ¶¶ 11-12, 787 A.2d 137, 140.
[¶ 23] The Board and Department each made a number of findings with respect to soil stability and wetlands. The Board found as follows. The evidence in the record indicates that, while there will be some bank erosion and sediment movement following dam removal, as the river re-establishes its natural channel, this erosion and sedimentation will not be significant. The evidence in the record further indicates that both FERC and the [Army] Corps [of Engineers] have also concluded that soil erosion and sedimentation will not be a significant issue. Finally, the evidence in the record indicates that the measures required by the Department will be sufficient to ensure that erosion and sedimentation from bank erosion and slumping are adequately controlled. The Board further found that while the relative proportion of wetland types will change following dam removal, the overall amount of wetlands will not change significantly. Although there is contrary evidence in the record, the Board made sufficient findings, and there is enough evidence in the record to support those findings regarding soil stability and wetlands.
[¶ 24] The Board adopted the Department's findings on fish and wildlife resources. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife commented to the Department that it did not oppose the proposed dam removal, and it recommended an incidental take plan to protect threatened mussel species. The Board's findings and conclusions addressed the incidental take plan as well as habitat for bald eagles. The findings with respect to fish and wildlife resources are sufficient, and are supported in the record.
[¶ 25] In its appeal to the Board, SOS did not specifically challenge the Department's findings with respect to historical and archeological resources, and therefore, any issue as to these findings is unpreserved. See New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56, 58 (Me.1988).
[¶ 26] The Board's findings as to public access reflect a balancing of lost recreational opportunities with newly created opportunities. Although some of the access may be across private lands, FPL Energy agreed to keep public access available at the site. We cannot say that those findings are legally insufficient or unsupported in the record.
[¶ 27] In its appeal of the Department's decision to the Board, SOS argued that the Department's order was silent on the issue of flood control. The Department, however, did make findings with respect to flood control. Flood control was a significant issue in the FERC and Army Corps of Engineering licensing processes, and the Army Corps conducted studies that are part of the present record. The findings of the Department, adopted by the Board, weighing flood control considerations are adequate and are supported in the record.
[¶ 28] SOS argues that the Board made inadequate findings with respect to hydroelectric power generation. The Department and the Board both made findings with respect to hydropower generation, and the generating capacity of the dam and concluded that the proposed partial removal of the dam will result in only a small decrease in hydropower generating capacity and annual energy output in the State. Notably, the State Planning Office stated in its comments on the partial removal of the dam that the energy loss is not significant from a statewide energy perspective. We cannot say that these findings are not supported in the record. [¶ 29] Finally, although the Board did not assign a specific value to each of the considerations discussed above, the Board and Department used language weighing each consideration, and concluded that the dam removal would not have an overall significant negative impact on the environmental and energy considerations. The Board properly balanced the section 636(7) criteria in determining that the advantages of the project are greater than the direct and cumulative adverse impacts.