Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 38
Maine Revised Statutes

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

Standards

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The department shall grant a permit upon proper application and upon such terms as it considers necessary to fulfill the purposes of this article. The department shall grant a permit when it finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity meets the standards set forth in subsections 1 to 11, except that when an activity requires a permit only because it is located in, on or over a community public water system primary protection area the department shall issue a permit when it finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity meets the standards set forth in subsections 2 and 5.   [PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. E, §7 (AMD).]
1.  Existing uses.  The activity will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses.  
In making a determination under this subsection regarding an expedited wind energy development, as defined in Title 35‑A, section 3451, subsection 4, or an offshore wind power project, the department shall consider the development's or project's effects on scenic character and existing uses related to scenic character in accordance with Title 35‑A, section 3452. In making a decision under this subsection regarding an application for an offshore wind power project, the department may not consider whether the project meets the specific criteria designated in Title 12, section 1862, subsection 2, paragraph A, subparagraph (6), divisions (a) to (d). This limitation is not intended to restrict the department's review of related potential impacts of the project as determined by the department.  
In making a determination under this subsection regarding an offshore wind terminal as defined in Title 35‑A, section 3410, subsection 1, paragraph D, the department shall consider the terminal's effects on scenic character and existing uses related to scenic character in accordance with Title 35‑A, section 3410.  
[PL 2023, c. 481, §11 (AMD).]
2.  Soil erosion.  The activity will not cause unreasonable erosion of soil or sediment nor unreasonably inhibit the natural transfer of soil from the terrestrial to the marine or freshwater environment.  
[PL 1989, c. 430, §5 (AMD).]
3.  Harm to habitats; fisheries.  The activity will not unreasonably harm any significant wildlife habitat, freshwater wetland plant habitat, threatened or endangered plant habitat, aquatic or adjacent upland habitat, travel corridor, freshwater, estuarine or marine fisheries or other aquatic life.  
In determining whether mining, as defined in section 490‑MM, subsection 11, will comply with this subsection, the department shall review an analysis of alternatives submitted by the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, a practicable alternative to mining, as defined in section 490‑MM, subsection 11, that is less damaging to the environment is not considered to exist. The department may consider alternatives associated with the activity, including alternative design and operational measures, in its evaluation of whether the activity avoided and minimized impacts to the maximum extent practicable.  
In determining whether there is unreasonable harm to significant wildlife habitat, the department may consider proposed mitigation if that mitigation does not diminish in the vicinity of the proposed activity the overall value of significant wildlife habitat and species utilization of the habitat and if there is no specific biological or physical feature unique to the habitat that would be adversely affected by the proposed activity. For purposes of this subsection, "mitigation" means any action taken or not taken to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate or compensate for any actual or potential adverse impact on the significant wildlife habitat, including the following:  
A. Avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
B. Minimizing an impact by limiting the magnitude, duration or location of an activity or by controlling the timing of an activity;   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
C. Rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment;   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
D. Reducing or eliminating an impact over time through preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
E. Compensating for an impact by replacing the affected significant wildlife habitat.   [PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2011, c. 653, §15 (AMD); PL 2011, c. 653, §33 (AFF).]
4.  Interfere with natural water flow.  The activity will not unreasonably interfere with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters.  
[PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
5.  Lower water quality.  The activity will not violate any state water quality law, including those governing the classification of the State's waters.  
[PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
6.  Flooding.  The activity will not unreasonably cause or increase the flooding of the alteration area or adjacent properties.  
[PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
7.  Sand or gravel supply.  If the activity is on or adjacent to a sand dune, it will not unreasonably interfere with the natural supply or movement of sand or gravel within or to the sand dune system or unreasonably increase the erosion hazard to the sand dune system.  
[PL 2003, c. 551, §8 (AMD).]
8.  Outstanding river segments.  If the proposed activity is a crossing of any outstanding river segment as identified in section 480‑P, the applicant shall demonstrate that no reasonable alternative exists which would have less adverse effect upon the natural and recreational features of the river segment.  
[PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW).]
9.  Dredging.  If the proposed activity involves dredging, dredge spoils disposal or transporting dredge spoils by water, the applicant must demonstrate that the transportation route minimizes adverse impacts on the fishing industry and that the disposal site is geologically suitable. The Commissioner of Marine Resources shall provide the department with an assessment of the impacts on the fishing industry of a proposed dredging operation in the coastal wetlands. The assessment must consider impacts to the area to be dredged and impacts to the fishing industry of a proposed route to transport dredge spoils to an ocean disposal site. The Commissioner of Marine Resources may hold a public hearing on the proposed dredging operation. In determining if a hearing is to be held, the Commissioner of Marine Resources shall consider the potential impacts of the proposed dredging operation on fishing in the area to be dredged. If a hearing is held, it must be within at least one of the municipalities in which the dredging operation would take place. If the Commissioner of Marine Resources determines that a hearing is not to be held, the Commissioner of Marine Resources must publish a notice of that determination in a newspaper of general circulation in the area proposed for the dredging operation. The notice must state that the Commissioner of Marine Resources will accept verbal and written comments in lieu of a public hearing. The notice must also state that if 5 or more persons request a public hearing within 30 days of the notice publication, the Commissioner of Marine Resources will hold a hearing. If 5 or more persons request a public hearing within 30 days of the notice publication, the Commissioner of Marine Resources must hold a hearing. In making its determination under this subsection, the department must take into consideration the assessment provided by the Commissioner of Marine Resources. The permit must require the applicant to:  
A. Clearly mark or designate the dredging area, the spoils disposal route and the transportation route;   [PL 1997, c. 164, §1 (NEW); PL 1997, c. 164, §2 (AFF).]
B. Publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the area adjacent to the route the approved transportation route of the dredge spoils; and   [PL 1997, c. 164, §1 (NEW); PL 1997, c. 164, §2 (AFF).]
C. Publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the area adjacent to the route a procedure that the applicant will use to respond to inquiries regarding the loss of fishing gear during the dredging operation.   [PL 1997, c. 164, §1 (NEW); PL 1997, c. 164, §2 (AFF).]
[PL 2001, c. 248, §1 (AMD).]
10.  Significant groundwater well.  If the proposed activity includes a significant groundwater well, the applicant must demonstrate that the activity will not have an undue unreasonable effect on waters of the State, as defined in section 361‑A, subsection 7, water-related natural resources and existing uses, including, but not limited to, public or private wells within the anticipated zone of contribution to the withdrawal. In making findings under this subsection, the department shall consider both the direct effects of the proposed withdrawal and its effects in combination with existing water withdrawals.  
[PL 2007, c. 399, §12 (NEW).]
11.  Offshore wind power project.  This subsection applies to an offshore wind power project.  
A. If an offshore wind power project does not require a permit from the department pursuant to article 6, the applicant must demonstrate that the generating facilities:  
(1) Will meet the requirements of the noise control rules adopted by the board pursuant to article 6;  
(2) Will be designed and sited to avoid unreasonable adverse shadow flicker effects; and  
(3) Will be constructed with setbacks adequate to protect public safety, while maintaining existing uses to the extent practicable. In making a finding pursuant to this paragraph, the department shall consider the recommendation of a professional, licensed civil engineer as well as any applicable setback recommended by a manufacturer of the generating facilities.   [PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. E, §9 (NEW).]
B. If an offshore wind power project does not require a permit from the department pursuant to article 6, the applicant must demonstrate adequate financial capacity to decommission the offshore wind power project.   [PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. E, §9 (NEW).]
C. An applicant for an offshore wind power project is not required to demonstrate compliance with requirements of this article that the department determines are addressed by criteria specified in Title 12, section 1862, subsection 2, paragraph A, subparagraph (6).   [PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. E, §9 (NEW).]
[PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. E, §9 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 809, §2 (NEW). PL 1989, c. 430, §5 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 656, §3 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 890, §§A40,B71,72 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 296, §2 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 164, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 164, §2 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 248, §1 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 618, §3 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 551, §8 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 353, §9 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 399, §12 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 661, Pt. B, §10 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. E, §§7-9 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 653, §15 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 653, §33 (AFF). PL 2023, c. 481, §11 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). · cites it 14× “38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2004). However, because a permit cannot be issued unless an applicant has demonstrated that all nine standards are met and because the Department found that Kroeger failed to meet two of the standards, the Department denied the permit.”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). · cites it 9× “" 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. As illustrated by Kroeger , an applicant may be aided by expert testimony in meeting this burden.”
Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2010 ME 18 (Me. 2010). · cites it 3× “The Board also found that Evergreen had demonstrated that the Rollins Project “will not unreasonably harm bald eagles or other wildlife” in accordance with Department rules and with the NRPA, 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(3). The Board based this finding in large part on Evergreen’s…”
Hannum v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 123 (Me. 2003). · cites it 4× “38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2002). The standards in controversy in this case are those listed in section 480-D(l), requiring an applicant to demonstrate that there will be no unreasonable interference with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational, or navigational uses, and…”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 876 A.2d 16 (Me. 2005). · cites it 6× “2 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2004). “[T]o ensure that the standards set forth in [section 480-D .”
Hannum v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2006 ME 51 (Me. 2006). · cites it 8× “" 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (Supp. 1999). The statute then lists nine standards to be applied in reviewing a permit application, including: 3.”
Murphy v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 615 A.2d 255 (Me. 1992). · cites it 5× “The Superior Court granted Murphy’s appeal and remanded the case to the Board concluding (1) that the Board had improperly processed Murphy’s permit application by erroneously applying all eight of the statutory standards then contained in 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D, 2 (2) that the…”
Friends of Maine's Mountains v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2013 ME 25 (Me. 2013). “In Uliano , we upheld the “existing scenic and aesthetic use standard” of the National Resource Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(l) (2012), despite its non-quantifiable and difficult to apply characteristics.”
Thanks But No Tank v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2013 ME 114 (Me. 2013). “See 38 M.R.S. §§ 480-D, 480-X (2012); 2 C.M.R.”
Richard Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n, 2022 ME 42 (Me. 2022). “[¶16] We have held that a standard that required that a proposed activity “not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses,” 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(1) (2022), was sufficiently definite to not be void for vagueness or unconstitutionally…”
MacKay v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). · cites it 6× “Discussion Before it may issue a permit under the NRPA, the DEP must determine that the application meets the standards listed in 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. See Uliano v. Bd. Of Envtl.”
E. Maine Conservation Initiative v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2025 ME 35 (Me. 2025). · cites it 8× “With respect to the NRPA permit, Kingfish’s application satisfied the eleven standards set out in the NRPA statute at 38 M.R.S. § 480-D, including the standard relevant in this appeal, with the Department finding that 7 [t]he proposed activity will not unreasonably harm any…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(1) — 6 cases
Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). “38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2004). However, because a permit cannot be issued unless an applicant has demonstrated that all nine standards are met and because the Department found that Kroeger failed to meet two of the standards, the Department denied the permit.”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). “" 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. As illustrated by Kroeger , an applicant may be aided by expert testimony in meeting this burden.”
Richard Ouellette v. Saco River Corridor Comm'n, 2022 ME 42 (Me. 2022). “[¶16] We have held that a standard that required that a proposed activity “not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses,” 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(1) (2022), was sufficiently definite to not be void for vagueness or unconstitutionally…”
Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. State of Maine, Dep't of Envtl. Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2000).
E. Maine Conservation Initiative v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2025 ME 35 (Me. 2025). “With respect to the NRPA permit, Kingfish’s application satisfied the eleven standards set out in the NRPA statute at 38 M.R.S. § 480-D, including the standard relevant in this appeal, with the Department finding that 7 [t]he proposed activity will not unreasonably harm any…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(3) — 5 cases
Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). “38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2004). However, because a permit cannot be issued unless an applicant has demonstrated that all nine standards are met and because the Department found that Kroeger failed to meet two of the standards, the Department denied the permit.”
Friends of Lincoln Lakes v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2010 ME 18 (Me. 2010). “The Board also found that Evergreen had demonstrated that the Rollins Project “will not unreasonably harm bald eagles or other wildlife” in accordance with Department rules and with the NRPA, 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(3). The Board based this finding in large part on Evergreen’s…”
Hannum v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2006 ME 51 (Me. 2006). “" 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (Supp. 1999). The statute then lists nine standards to be applied in reviewing a permit application, including: 3.”
E. Maine Conservation Initiative v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2025 ME 35 (Me. 2025). “With respect to the NRPA permit, Kingfish’s application satisfied the eleven standards set out in the NRPA statute at 38 M.R.S. § 480-D, including the standard relevant in this appeal, with the Department finding that 7 [t]he proposed activity will not unreasonably harm any…”
MacKay v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “Discussion Before it may issue a permit under the NRPA, the DEP must determine that the application meets the standards listed in 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. See Uliano v. Bd. Of Envtl.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(3)(A) — 1 case
Hannum v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2003 ME 123 (Me. 2003). “38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2002). The standards in controversy in this case are those listed in section 480-D(l), requiring an applicant to demonstrate that there will be no unreasonable interference with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational, or navigational uses, and…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(5) — 1 case
E. Maine Conservation Initiative v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2025 ME 35 (Me. 2025). “With respect to the NRPA permit, Kingfish’s application satisfied the eleven standards set out in the NRPA statute at 38 M.R.S. § 480-D, including the standard relevant in this appeal, with the Department finding that 7 [t]he proposed activity will not unreasonably harm any…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(7) — 1 case
Murphy v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 615 A.2d 255 (Me. 1992). “The Superior Court granted Murphy’s appeal and remanded the case to the Board concluding (1) that the Board had improperly processed Murphy’s permit application by erroneously applying all eight of the statutory standards then contained in 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D, 2 (2) that the…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(8) — 1 case
Murphy v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 615 A.2d 255 (Me. 1992). “The Superior Court granted Murphy’s appeal and remanded the case to the Board concluding (1) that the Board had improperly processed Murphy’s permit application by erroneously applying all eight of the statutory standards then contained in 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D, 2 (2) that the…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(9) — 2 cases
Murphy v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 615 A.2d 255 (Me. 1992). “The Superior Court granted Murphy’s appeal and remanded the case to the Board concluding (1) that the Board had improperly processed Murphy’s permit application by erroneously applying all eight of the statutory standards then contained in 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D, 2 (2) that the…”
Mabee v. Bd. of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2021).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(S) — 1 case
MacKay v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “Discussion Before it may issue a permit under the NRPA, the DEP must determine that the application meets the standards listed in 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. See Uliano v. Bd. Of Envtl.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 38, § 480-D(l) — 7 cases
Kroeger v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 2005 ME 50 (Me. 2005). “38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2004). However, because a permit cannot be issued unless an applicant has demonstrated that all nine standards are met and because the Department found that Kroeger failed to meet two of the standards, the Department denied the permit.”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2009 ME 89 (Me. 2009). “" 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. As illustrated by Kroeger , an applicant may be aided by expert testimony in meeting this burden.”
Uliano v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 876 A.2d 16 (Me. 2005). “2 38 M.R.S.A. § 480-D (2001 & Supp.2004). “[T]o ensure that the standards set forth in [section 480-D .”
Friends of Maine's Mountains v. Bd. of Env't Prot., 2013 ME 25 (Me. 2013). “In Uliano , we upheld the “existing scenic and aesthetic use standard” of the National Resource Protection Act, 38 M.R.S. § 480-D(l) (2012), despite its non-quantifiable and difficult to apply characteristics.”
MacKay v. Maine Dep't of Env't Prot. (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “Discussion Before it may issue a permit under the NRPA, the DEP must determine that the application meets the standards listed in 38 M.R.S. § 480-D. See Uliano v. Bd. Of Envtl.”
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.