Opinion ID: 2156554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Existing Scenic Uses

Text: [¶ 9] The construction of a permanent structure in, on, or over a coastal wetland is an activity that requires a permit. 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-C (2001 & Supp.2004). An applicant for a permit has the burden to demonstrate that the activity will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic uses. 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D(1). An applicant also has to meet the standards set forth in the regulations promulgated by the Department. One of those is the avoidance standard: No activity shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the project that would be less damaging to the environment. 2 C.M.R. 06 096 310-4 § 5(A) (2002). The regulation also states that even if there is no practicable alternative, the application will be denied if the activity will have an unreasonable impact on the wetland. 2 C.M.R. 06 096 310-5 § 5(D)(1) (2002). [¶ 10] In the decision denying Kroeger's application for a permit, the Department described Somes Sound, the location of the proposed dock, as the only natural fjord on the east coast of the United States. It noted that Acadia National Park is located on the opposite side of Somes Sound from the proposed dock. The Department found that the dock would not blend into the shoreline and that a light colored, linear structure 17 feet high and extending out into the sound represents a sharp visual contrast to the natural horizontal banding of the shoreline, and would degrade the scenic character of the natural shoreline of the Somes Sound fjord. [¶ 11] The evidence before the Department included reports by experts opining on the visual impact of the proposed dock. Kroeger's expert concluded that the proposed dock would be prominent only from close range, but that it would blend with the existing shoreline. Kroeger's expert commented that the visual impact of the proposed dock would diminish with distance: At extremely close range the structures can cross a viewers [ sic ] entire field of vision. At middle distances the structures cross a small percentage of a viewers [ sic ] field of vision, while distant viewers see the structures taking a very small percentage of their field of vision. [¶ 12] The intervener submitted an expert's report to the Department that criticized the lack of information in Kroeger's expert's report regarding the existing scenic uses. The intervener's expert stated: People from all over the world come to view Somes Sound. The people who will see the proposed pier from boats and hiking trails will be largely recreationists who, as a group, and especially in a landscape of such national significance, primarily seek high quality settings. As such, they are very highly sensitive to changes in the landscape. [¶ 13] In addition to the experts' reports on existing scenic uses and the visual impact of the proposed dock, the record contains photographs of the affected area, including photographs submitted by Kroeger containing simulations of the proposed dock. The photographs demonstrate the scenic beauty of the area and the lack of other docks. The photographs with simulations also demonstrate the interference of the proposed dock with the existing scene. The record evidence discloses that there are no other docks within 2000 feet of the location of Kroeger's proposed dock, and the other docks on the Sound are more secluded than the proposed dock and are not on the narrow reach of the Sound. [¶ 14] The administrative record also includes comments by members of the public and neighbors. The comments attest to the unique scenic beauty of the area and the fear that the proposed dock would interfere with the scenery of the Sound. The Department noted that Somes Sound is used by many boaters to enjoy the beauty of the area. Department personnel also visited the site and took notice of the proposed location and its proximity to Acadia National Park. The record adequately supports the Department's finding that the proposed dock will interfere with existing scenic uses of boaters, hikers, and sightseers of Somes Sound. [¶ 15] The dissent contends that the scenic use at issue is that of the wetland itself. Because [c]oastal wetlands are defined as all tidal and subtidal lands, 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-B(2) (2001), the dissent concludes that there is seldom any scenic use of subtidal lands, because they are underwater and invisible to most people. However, section 480-D(1) does not limit the requirement of noninterference to existing uses of the coastal wetland itself. In Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 2003 ME 62, ¶ 33, 823 A.2d 551, 562, we focused on the uses of the location in which the pier or wharf is to be constructed. If the uses were limited to tidal and subtidal lands without the use of the water covering those tidal and subtidal lands, the requirement of noninterference with navigational uses in section 480-D(1) would not make sense. [¶ 16] Furthermore, the dissent's finding that subtidal lands have no scenic use for anyone other than a scuba diver is contrary to the legislative finding that coastal wetlands... are resources of state significance ... [that] have great scenic beauty. 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-A (2001). The dissent's unduly restrictive construction of scenic and aesthetic uses to apply only to the land beneath the subtidal and tidal waters does not comport with the broad, liberal interpretation that we give to NRPA. Murphy v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 615 A.2d 255, 259 (Me.1992). Finally, the dissent's application of section 480-D and the Department's regulations is contrary to the Department's interpretation of the statute it is charged with enforcing and the regulations it has promulgated, and we give deference to the Department's interpretation. Id. By visiting the surrounding area and considering the impact of the proposed dock on the boaters and hikers who flock to Acadia for the scenic beauty of the area, the Department has interpreted the statute and its own regulations to mean that the general location of the proposed activity is at issue when considering interference with existing scenic uses. [4]