Maquoit Bay LLC v. Department of Marine Resources

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment upholding the Department of Marine Resources’ approval of an aquaculture lease in Maquoit Bay. The court addressed the meaning of “riparian owner,” practicable alternatives, the public trust doctrine, burden shifting, the lease’s non-discharge designation, notice to the Department of Environmental Protection, and an alleged conflict of interest. The court concluded that DMR’s decision complied with the governing statutory requirements and was supported by the record.

Holdings

1. DMR's rule limiting riparian owners to those within 1,000 feet of the proposed lease site was inconsistent with the plain language of section 6072(7-A)(A), which requires DMR to consider whether a lease would unreasonably interfere with the ingress and egress of any riparian owner. Nevertheless, the agency's decision complied substantively with the statute because DMR considered the Diolis' access concerns while analyzing navigation.
2. Neither 12 M.R.S. § 6072 nor the aquaculture-lease regulations required MPOC to analyze practicable alternative lease locations, and DMR did not err by approving the application without requiring such an analysis.
3. The public trust doctrine did not impose an additional obligation on DMR to balance public and private interests beyond the requirements expressly established in section 6072.
4. DMR did not improperly shift the burden to the limited intervenors. The agency relied on information from multiple sources in finding that the lease would not unreasonably interfere with commercial fishing, and the appellants failed to show unlawful procedure.
5. DMR reasonably classified MPOC's lease proposal as a non-discharge application, and the court deferred to that determination.
6. DMR properly notified DEP of MPOC's completed application on February 15, 2018, defeating the appellants' notice argument and related contention concerning DEP's ability to consider the Natural Resources Protection Act.
7. Devereaux's dual roles as an MPOC owner and Brunswick Harbormaster did not create a conflict of interest that compromised the fairness of the proceedings because he recused himself as harbormaster at DMR's insistence shortly after the pre-application meeting.

Questions Presented

1. Whether DMR's regulatory definition of riparian owner, limiting the term to shorefront property owners whose property boundaries were within 1,000 feet of the proposed lease boundaries, conflicted with 12 M.R.S. § 6072(7-A)(A).
2. Whether DMR was required by 12 M.R.S. § 6072 or the governing regulations to require the lease applicant to analyze practicable alternative locations with lesser impacts.
3. Whether the public trust doctrine imposed additional obligations on DMR beyond the express requirements of 12 M.R.S. § 6072.
4. Whether DMR improperly shifted the burden to limited intervenors to establish that the proposed lease would not unreasonably interfere with commercial fishing.
5. Whether DMR reasonably classified MPOC's proposal as a non-discharge application.
6. Whether DMR properly notified the Department of Environmental Protection of MPOC's completed lease application.
7. Whether Daniel Devereaux's dual roles as MPOC owner and Brunswick Harbormaster created a conflict of interest that compromised the fairness of the proceedings.

Disposition

affirmed