Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-A (2026)

Findings; purpose; short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The Legislature finds and declares that the State's rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands and coastal sand dunes systems are resources of state significance. These resources have great scenic beauty and unique characteristics, unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical and environmental value of present and future benefit to the citizens of the State and that uses are causing the rapid degradation and, in some cases, the destruction of these critical resources, producing significant adverse economic and environmental impacts and threatening the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the State.   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
The Legislature further finds and declares that there is a need to facilitate research, develop management programs and establish sound environmental standards that will prevent the degradation of and encourage the enhancement of these resources. It is the intention of the Legislature that existing programs related to Maine's rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands and sand dunes systems continue and that the Department of Environmental Protection provide coordination and vigorous leadership to develop programs to achieve the purposes of this article. The well-being of the citizens of this State requires the development and maintenance of an efficient system of administering this article to minimize delays and difficulties in evaluating alterations of these resource areas.   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
The Legislature further finds and declares that the cumulative effect of frequent minor alterations and occasional major alterations of these resources poses a substantial threat to the environment and economy of the State and its quality of life.   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
This article is known and may be cited as "the Natural Resources Protection Act."   [PL 2007, c. 290, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW). PL 2007, c. 290, §1 (AMD).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009).
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). · cites it 10× “) affirming the Board of Environmental Protection's order denying their application for a permit to build a pier pursuant to the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-GG (2008). [1] The Ulianos raise numerous issues on appeal, including that the scenic and…”
Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). · cites it 4× “The Department denied the permit because it found that the proposed dock did not meet the requirements of the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 480-A to-Z (2001 & Supp.2004), in two respects: (1) the dock would unreasonably interfere with existing scenic uses, and…”
Hannum v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2006 ME 51 (Me. 2006). · cites it 6× “In establishing the purpose of the NRPA, the Legislature acknowledged that " uses are causing the rapid degradation and, in some cases, the destruction of these critical resources." Id. (emphasis added). In order to prevent such degradation and destruction, the Legislature…”
Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 15 A.3d 1263 (Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “§§ 481-490 (2008) (the Site Location statute), and the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-GG (2008) (the NRPA), 3 to construct the Record Hill Wind Project in Roxbury.”
Hannum v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 123 (Me. 2003). · cites it 2× “Statutes and Rules [¶ 2] Before building the dock, Hannum was required, among other things, to obtain a permit pursuant to the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 480-A to 480-Z (2001 & Supp.”
Francis Small Heritage Trust, Inc. v. Town of Limington, 2014 ME 102 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “For example, 38 M.R.S. § 480-A (2013) states: The Legislature finds and declares that the State’s rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands and coastal sand dunes systems are resources of state…”
Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2010 ME 18 (Me. 2010). “§§ 481-490 (2008) (the Site Law), and the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-GG (2008) (the NRPA), to construct the Rollins Wind Project in the Towns of Lincoln, Lee, Winn, Burlington, and Mattawamkeag.”
NECEC Transmission LLC v. Bureau of Parks & Lands, 2022 ME 48 (Me. 2022). “NECEC applied for permits from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as required under the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-JJ (2017), and the Site Location of 6 Development Act, 38 M.”
Passadumkeag Mountain Friends v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2014 ME 116 (Me. 2014). “ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS [¶ 2] In February 2012, PW applied to the Department for an expedited wind energy development permit pursuant to the Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-A to 480-HH (2012). See 35-A M.”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 876 A.2d 16 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “) affirming the Board of Environmental Protection’s order denying their application for a permit to build a pier pursuant to the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA, the Act), 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 480-A to 480-AA (2001 & Supp.”
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 62 (Me. 2003). “NRPA [¶ 2] The Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA), 38 M.R.S.A. §§ 480-A to 480-Z (2001 & Supp,2002), is a statutory scheme whose purpose is the protection of Maine’s rivers, ponds, wetlands, mountains, wildlife habitats, and coastal sand dunes.”
Fichter v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 604 A.2d 433 (Me. 1992). “The Alteration of Coastal Wetlands Act, 38 M.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.