A Study of Working Waterfronts in 25 Maine Communities The changing constituency in coastal Maine...

1

Preserving CommercialFishing Access:A Study of Working Waterfrontsin 25 Maine Communities

2

“Unless you can parka truck, access means

nothing.”

“Property is beingsold off. Houses areselling for at least

200% of their value.In a few years it willjust be a few co-ops

that are left providingaccess.”

“New coastalproperty ownersdon’t understand

the historicalrights that peoplehave to access the

water.”

The picture shows how a private landownerwho abuts a town access point has ‘land-scaped across the right of way’.

The picture shows one of the co-opsin Bristol that help assure commercialfishing access.

3

Table of ContentsIntroduction ........................ 4

Findings &recommendations ................. 5

Methodology ........................ 7

Analysis of issues & trends ..... 9

Maps ................................. 17

Key to town profiles ............ 18

Town profiles ..................... 20

Appendix .......................... 30

Pre-development matrix .... 30

Vulnerability matrix ......... 31

Town questionnaire .......... 32

Acknowledgements .......... 34

Preserving Commercial Fishing Access:A Study of Working Waterfronts in 25 Maine Communities

A report by Coastal Enterprises, Inc. submitted to theMaine State Planning Office Coastal Program

Produced and written by: Elizabeth Sheehan & Hugh Cowperthwaite

Advisors: Kathleen Leyden, Maine State Planning Office; Jim Connors, Maine State PlanningOffice; Steve Train, Commercial fisherman; Sue Inches, Maine Department of Marine Resources; Benjamin Neal, Island Institute;Yvette Alexander, Maine Fishermen’s Wives Association; David Etnier, Maine State Legislature

Graphic design: Tina Tarr Design

Photos & maps: Hugh Cowperthwaite (additional photos borrowed from the Maine Department of Transportation)

Coastal Enterprises, Inc. mission statement: to help people and communities, particularly those with low incomes, reach anadequate and equitable standard of living, working and learning, in harmony with the natural environment.

Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under theCoastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended. The CZMA is administered in Maine by the State Planning Office’sMaine Coastal Program.

Printed on recycled paper. Coastal Enterprises, Inc. December 2002. A publication of

CEI CoastalEnterprises,Inc. Maine Coastal Program

4

Recent testimonies and hearings on the issue contribute to the concern thatthis small patch is shrinking. Many towns are, or soon will be, facing impor-tant planning and investment decisions about their waterfronts.

Historically, these 7,000 miles have served and supported a range of humanneeds from industrial and commercial to residential and recreational activi-ties, from bulk cargo and fishing to houses and parks. The recent downturnin the stock market has steered investors into the current rush to purchasesummer homes with waterfront access. Traditional water-dependent uses arefeeling the pinch. Commercial fishing and recreational traffic are all vying forincreasingly expensive waterfront real estate. Basic questions about who canafford to live and work along Maine’s waterfront are being raised.

This report and study is specifically concerned with the issue of commercialfishing access. It focuses on where the roughly 10,300 fishermen and womenwill unload their catch, buy ice and fuel, park their trucks and access theirboats. Why is this important? Our commercial fishing industry makes a valu-able and important contribution – as a producer of high quality protein tofeed our families, as a generator of over 26,000 jobs, and as a creator of realincome for Maine’s rural communities. In 2001, the industry’s economic im-pact climbed to over $860 million from $773 million the year before.2

In October of 2001, the Maine State Legislature convened a taskforce to betterunderstand the threats to commercial fishing access. The taskforce heard fromfishermen, municipal officials, and coastal residents who offered testimony oflost access in their town: no trespassing signs across paths to clam flats, growingcongestion on municipal piers, and working wharves converted into summerresidences. Aside from stories like these and the 25 miles figure, the taskforcehad almost no other data. As part of their recommendations, they agreed to a

need for a systematic assessment of thecurrent conditions and threats to com-mercial fishing access, as well as a needfor tracking this issue over time.

In response, the State Planning Officecontracted with Coastal Enterprises, Inc.,to assess the status of commercial fishingaccess through a survey of 25 coastalfishing towns and to make recommen-dations regarding monitoring thisissue in the future. The study includeda review of two previous studies anddatabases on waterfront facilities, andinterviews with 90 municipal officials,staff, waterfront committee members,commercial fishermen and harbor mas-ters. We also analysed secondarydevelopment data (economic and de-mographic) and commercial fishinglicenses to round out the informationon the importance of the industry andto distinguish between differentdevelopment pressures experienced byvarious towns. Following the methodssection we have summarized majorfindings and recommendations. Theanalysis of issues and trends sectionoffers details and discussion for eachsurvey question response. Each townhas a summary profile that offers anat-a-glance summary of commercialfishing access statistics and responsesas well as the average numbers and re-sponses from the total 25-town sample.

Introduction

When you trace the tidal shore land from Kitteryto Eastport, Maine’s coast measures about 7,000miles long. At last count, working waterfrontsrepresent a mere 25 miles of this coastline.1

1 Source: Maine State Planning Office, 20002 Source: This figure represents the economic impact of Maine’s fish and shellfish landings. For every dollar of landed value generated, $2.39 isgenerated in income. (Source: Jim Wilson, Resource Economist, University of Maine, Orono and NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Servicewww.nefsc.nmfs.gov/press_releases /news00_16.htm-12 August 3, 2001.)

5

■ The changing constituency in coastal Maine has and will have an impacton how waterfronts are valued and used. Cost of living & housing are mak-ing it more difficult for working families to live in coastal communities. Asmore fishermen commute from inland homes to use “waterfronts”, there isa danger that local residents will choose to change waterfront uses. Thishas implications for long-term use of waterfronts in Maine.

■ The challenge here on preserving commercial fishing access/working wa-terfronts is that, to date one of the most effective tools used to preventconversion is exclusive zoning, which limits property rights and thereforeproperty values. For the 25 towns studied 40% of the commercial fishingaccess is provided by private residences. It raises tremendous concernand genuine opposition when working families are asked to limit the valueof one of their major, if not only, asset—their land and property.

■ Loss of commercial fishing takes many forms, which adds to the complexityof tracking it and strategies to respond to it: We have identified six kinds—

1.Access to inter-tidal areas lost through no trespassing signs2.New coastal property owners closing off/contesting public access3.Commercial fishing access tenuous through lease arrangements4.Singular reliance on public facility—competition from other users5.Land-use access problem: limited parking6.Conversion of working wharves to residential/recreation

■ There is strong support and concern for protecting commercial fishing ac-cess. 64% of the 25 towns surveyed indicated that access is a problemnow. 80% of the 25 towns surveyed are planning to address this issue.They are using a variety of strategies: first right and refusal on waterfrontproperty—(Phippsburg); purchasing land, improving facilities through SmallHarbor Improvement Program (SHIP); working with land trusts (Machiasport);access rights through summer residents—use and deeds (Winter Harbor, BlueHill, Summer Island); fishing cooperatives purchasing land, towns working oneconomic development issues with fishing industry (Bath); priority lists formoorings for commercial fishing (capacity to hand it down); towns working to-

Findings & recommendations

gether to create resource access.(Stonington & Isle au Haut); eminentdomain (Addison).

■ For the 25 towns surveyed, com-mercial fishing access is providedthrough publicly-owned facilities,privately-owned commercial piersand through private resident-ownedwharves: 25% by publicly ownedfacilities; 75% private, which con-sists of 35% private commercialand 40% private residential. Onthe one hand this shows the impor-tance of and the reliance we have onprivate resident working wharves toinsure access for commercial fishing.It is not surprising that, as shown be-low, 84% of the towns voted forproperty tax relief as a key strat-egy for preserving access. The factthat commercial fishing access isprovided by both public and privatefacilities/residences highlights theneed to distinguish strategies andtools for each.

Public sector: Public infrastruc-ture grants are a critical strategyfor creating, improving and pre-serving publicly-owned commer-cial fishing access. The SHIP pro-gram is in high demand fromcoastal towns and needs addi-tional money to support the pro-

6

gram. The Land for Maine’s Futureand Economic Development Ad-ministration programs have alsobeen used for land acquisition andpier construction.

Private sector: To support com-mercial fishing access, 75% ofwhich is provided privately, thereis a need for a corresponding poolof capital for land acquisition,maintenance and improvement ofpiers and wharves that provide ac-cess. In our discussions with pri-vate pier owners and public man-agers, we found interest in businessassistance to help pier owners andfishing cooperatives grow andkeep their businesses viable.

Public and private sector: Thetiming and cycle of grants andeven loan funds do not alwayskeep pace with quick turnaroundrequirements of the current coastalreal estate market. There is a needfor a mechanism, a bridge loan pro-gram that could serve towns andprivate pier owners committed topurchasing coastal property to cre-ate additional or keep from losingworking waterfront.

■ Immediate threats to access:Higher taxes; competition from rec-reational use and development pres-sure. In order to better understandwhat makes a town secured or vul-nerable to losing working waterfront,we developed a series of critical indi-cators. We postulate that towns withthe following characteristics are lessvulnerable to losing access:

• Commercial fishing access is apriority among town officials.

• Strong ordinances & regulations

in place to protect waterfrontfrom conversion to non water-dependent uses.

• Less than average developmentpressure as measured by popu-lation and housing increases,tax value per acre and tax costper acre.

• A dedicated fish pier for com-mercial use.

• A significant number of fishingcommunity residents.

■ Of the 25 towns surveyed, the toptwo tools to help preserve access:• #1 – Property tax relief 84%• #2 – Planning assistance 76%

Planning assistance ideas mentionedduring our survey include: purchaseaccess rights, deeded access, a planningworkshop on waterfront access tools,transfer shoreside development inland,model ordinances, comprehensive planassistance, write grant proposals,write ordinances, permit assistance,legislative process, an education cam-paign on waterfront issues, land useregulations, new shoreland zoning set-backs, town incentives to provide ac-cess, legal assistance, assistance iden-tifying historical access in towns,highlight the importance of thefishing industry, share information

about state and town actions (commu-nication), and a database for towns toaccess with FAQs.

■ We recommend an annual report-ing system for tracking & monitoringaccess for commercial fishing. Previ-ous databases and studies are notcompatible. We, therefore, recommendworking directly with harbor masterson an annual access survey to trackcommercial fishing access issues andchanges.

Tracking unit: Boat access, whichis defined as the total number ofberths + moorings + slips + tie-upsfor each coastal town.

Monitoring: Total use, the per-centage used by commercial vs.recreational, the break out be-tween publicly vs. privatelyowned, demand for access meas-ured by quantity (waiting lists)and cost.

How: Work with harbor masters toestablish a program and an annualreport on this issue. Develop a fund-ing mechanism to support this effort.

The photo shows the South Addison boatramp, which was built using federal andstate grants and town money.

“A few miles up thecoast in Jonesport,

7 waterfrontproperties changed

hands in 1998.The following year,1999-2000, there

were 32 waterfrontproperties sold. ”

7

The townsWe selected 25 coastal towns with a fishing industry presence that 1) repre-sented geographic diversity (2-4 towns per county); and 2) offered a range infishing industry size, population, and planning approaches to the waterfront.

The 25 selected communities represent:• 1,736 miles of coastline.• 4,076 commercial fish harvesters.• 154,347 coastal residents.• 3% average growth in population between 1990-2000.• 11% average increase in housing units between 1990-2000.• 11,462 total current boat access (berths + moorings + slips + tie ups)• 42% of the total current boat access in use is dedicated to commercial fishing

Facilities studies and databasesWe collected and reviewed two previous studies on waterfront facilities tofind out whether past information could be used as a base from which tomonitor or track commercial fishing access. One study was The MaineDepartment of Transportation’s (MDOT), “Maine Port Development Study,” con-

Methodology

ducted in 1985. The Southern MaineEconomic Development District andthe Eastern MaineDevelopment Corporation conducted asecond study in 1998 for the MaineDepartment of Marine Resources(MDMR) “Maine Port FacilitiesInventory and Analysis.”

InterviewsIn preparation for the town site visitsand interviews, we contacted each townoffice to generate a representative listof municipal officials, staff, harbormasters, and members of relevantmarine and/or waterfront committees.Interviews were conducted from Julyto September 2002. Each interviewlasted about two hours and consistedof a questionnaire, and review ofwaterfront facilities and boat accessinformation. A sample of the ques-tionnaire is provided in the appendix.

Vulnerability TableTo better understand the context ofthe commercial fishing access issues,we identified a series of criteria thatwe believe affect a town’s vulnerabil-ity to potential loss of access. As wemade our way from one communityto another we saw that very oftenneighboring towns of similar sizeand fishing population could havecontrasting access issues. We col-

8

lected a range of conditions, whichwe believe strengthens a town’scommercial fishing access. For eacharea that we defined as a data source,we calculated the sample-wide aver-age. Communities were given a pointfor each criterion in which they wereconsidered weaker than the othertowns. For example, a town thatscored weak on all criteria wouldgarner a total score of 9. The scoresreveal how each town stands againstthat particular criterion for main-taining access. The summary score isnot meant to prioritize coastalaccess issues in any way but ratherto generate discussion about theissues raised.

Whenever one attempts to take acomplex multi-variable public policyissue and offer an index of keyfactors there is risk. The risk here isoversimplification and reading thedata as prescriptive. The reward ispotential insight, increased attention,and discussion of policy priorities.In the hopes of the latter we offer adescription of the data and its limi-tations.

Commercial fishing access is stronger(less vulnerable to conversion) when• Access is a priority;• There are strong ordinances;• There is investment in waterfront

facilities;• There is a dedicated fish pier;• There is less development pressure;• There is greater than average

size of harvester community.

Access is a priority: This criterionunderscores the importance of need-ing support from locally elected offi-cials to champion this issue. A scoreof 1 reflects the fact that we did not

hear from the town’s intervieweesthat this was a priority issue.

Strong ordinances: As is the case inmost land use planning issues, thereare a range of potential regulations.In waterfront planning this includesanything from simple setback exclusionsto use restrictions. This criterion scoremeasures towns against the most effec-tive tool that prevents waterfrontconversion, which is exclusive zoning.

Investment in waterfront facilities:This criterion addresses the pressureagainst losing access when the towntakes steps and invests in itswaterfront infrastructure. The limithere is that this measure only focuseson a town’s most recent public invest-ment efforts through the SmallHarbor Improvement Program.

Dedicated fish pier: A more obviouscriterion is the presence or absence ofa dedicated commercial fishing pier.This unfortunately does not reflectthe state of that pier, i.e. the extentto which a town has maintained andinvested in its upkeep.

The development pressure data:This was the most complex and chal-lenging criterion to select and find theright combination of data available atthe municipal level to reflect coastaldevelopment pressure. The data aremeant to make sense as a collection ofindicators of development pressure –as singular measures they fail to cap-ture the complexity or expression ofdevelopment. With advice from theState Planning Office, we chose toinclude percentage change in popula-tion growth and housing units tocapture the demand interest and pres-sure to live in a particular place as

well as the demand and effect of dedi-cating more land to residential use.The census data used compares thischange from 1990-2000. The next twomeasures, tax cost per acre and taxvalue per acre, address how a precipi-tous increase in property taxes canserve to push and/or pull people to sellworking waterfront property. The taxcost per acre measures the push be-cause of higher and higher tax bills.The tax value per acre attempts tomeasure the pull – incentive to sellproperty given the market opportunityto cash in. The latest census data avail-able is for 2000. One need not look far-ther than the local paper or one’s owntax bill to know that the last two yearsis in fact when a significant number oftown re-valuations have been triggered.

Greater than average size of har-vester community: Finally, the lastcriteria selected accounts for thestrength in numbers factor for pre-serving commercial fishing access.Due to data limitations we took thenumber of harvesters as a % of eachtown’s population. Those with a % ator above the median (6%) were con-sidered less vulnerable.

Aside from the data limitations ofeach of the criteria, it is importantto explain that these measures donot necessarily address the most im-portant measure of a town’s strengthagainst losing access – the commu-nity-wide commitment to maintain-ing commercial fishing access. Whilewe witnessed this commitment wehad no way of measuring it. We onlyhope that this matrix will generate aconversation and help those inter-ested focus on the tools it may taketo keep their access.

9

I. Town approaches to managing access for commercial fishing.

Each town carries its own tradition of access, which has been shaped by earlyland tenure patterns and the historical role fishing has played in the economy.It also reflects the commitment of local leaders and citizens to maintain aworking waterfront. Over time, each town has developed a particular pattern ofproviding access through publicly-owned or managed piers, private commercialfacilities, or a collection of family-owned working wharves.

Analysis of issues and trends

This section addresses the question ofhow towns approach the waterfrontfrom a planning and regulatory stand-point. Table 1 summarizes, from left toright, the broad to specific planningtools a town can use to manage theuse of the waterfront area.

Findings:• 84% (21 out of the 25 towns

sampled) have a comprehensiveplan in place.

• 72% of the towns employ somekind of maritime use district fortheir waterfronts.

• 24% of the towns use an exclusivezone to protect waterfront access.

Comprehensive plans guide but do notguarantee waterfront access. We founda strong third of the 25 surveyed towns(nine) are currently in the process ofrevising their plans. Some towns, likePhippsburg and Harpswell, are usingthis process as an opportunity toclarify their working waterfront valuesand policies regarding access. Duringthe questions regarding zoning, theinterviewees were often uncertain ofspecific prohibitions or permitted usesin the district or zone. In general,maritime use districts offer a morelenient set of standards for waterdependent uses (such as less of a set-back). 48% of the towns take a mixed

Table 1: Current planning tools used for waterfrontsCommunity Comprehensive Zoning Mixed use ExclusiveTown/City plan in place in place zoning zoningKittery X noKennebunkport X X Mixed useBiddeford X X Mixed usePortland X X ExclusiveFreeport X X ExclusiveHarpswell X X ExclusivePhippsburg no noBath X X Mixed useBoothbay Harbor X X Mixed useBristol X noBremen no X Mixed useRockland X X ExclusiveFriendship X X Mixed useSt. George X X Mixed useVinalhaven X X ExclusiveIslesboro no X ExclusiveSearsport X noStonington no noSwans Island X X Mixed useSouthwest Harbor X X Mixed useWinter Harbor X noJonesport X X Mixed useAddison X noMachiasport X X Mixed useEastport X X Mixed usePercentiles 84% 72% 48% 24%

10

use approach to the waterfront whichpermits some shared use betweencommercial and residential uses andtherefore does not always protectwaterfront areas from possible conver-sion from commercial to residential.The last column underscores the factthat relatively few towns (24%) areusing a strong regulatory tool likeexclusive zoning.

Important to note is that the pres-ence of zoning does not say anythingabout the quality or sufficiency of thetown’s current waterfront access. Forexample, 11 of the 18 towns that haveeither mixed use or exclusive zoningin place are currently worried aboutthe loss of commercial fishing access.In the end, these planning tools,though important, do not guaranteeagainst having an access problem forcommercial fishing.

II. Who pays attention tocommercial fishing access?

Findings:• 64% of the towns surveyed have

a permanent harbor committeeor commission.

The remaining towns use ad hoccommittees. Worth noting is thatthe permanence of a committee mayreflect a town’s commitment tooverseeing the area but it does notnecessarily mean that there is strongerparticipation than on a temporarycommittee. Many of the committees

had some representation from thefishing industry or harbor masterswho themselves had fishing experi-ence. On the ground, it is the towns’harbor masters that face the dailychallenges of unresolved access is-sues (the unsung heroes). It isimportant, however, to make adistinction between those who payattention to these issues and thosewho in fact make the actual deci-sions (planning boards, selectmen,and councils).

III. Efforts to shore up access.

Findings:• 64% (16 out of 25 towns sampled)

are currently involved in projectsto preserve, increase, or improvecommercial fishing access (seeFigure 1, page 17).

• 76% of the towns have applied forSmall Harbor Improvement Program(SHIP) round 1 or round 2. Ofthose that applied, 17 towns or(68%) were successful (see Table 3).

The map to the left shows Harpswell’s Com-mercial Fishing Zones (in red).

“There are 218 milesof coastline in

Harpswell. One quarterof that is zoned forCommercial Fishing.

Zoning does notguarantee access.”

The map above shows Friendship’s commer-cial/marine activities in dark red.

Table 2: Current efforts to address access for commercial fishing

24% looking 28% just 32% improvefor land (access) purchased land access infrastructure

Biddeford Freeport BathPortland Harpswell Bristol

Phippsburg Stonington RocklandSt. George Swans Island Winter Harbor

Winter Harbor Southwest Harbor JonesportMachiasport Jonesport Machiasport

Eastport Machiasport Eastport

“There is plenty ofaccess in Friendship and

everyone on theplanning board is procommercial fishing.

11

There are two tables and one map tosummarize the information gath-ered. Table 2 simply defines thekinds of projects and lists those townsengaged in each. Table 3, a morecomprehensive table, adds a fewcolumns to show which towns havemade efforts to get public fundingfor waterfront projects and whichhave succeeded. The map reveals thecoastwide geographic diversity ofthose towns involved in accessprojects. One note is that the major-ity of towns to have most recentlypurchased land are downeast.

IV. Nature of access problem.

This next section focuses on the per-ception that commercial fishing accessis a problem. The questions thenlead to a discussion of the causes ofaccess issues, current and futurethreats and impacts.

Findings:• 64% (16 out of 25 towns sam-

pled) considered waterfront ac-cess for their town’s commercialfishing community a currentproblem (see Figure 2, page 17).

• Among the three coastal regions(southern, midcoast, anddowneast) we found that the

Table 3: Town efforts and public infrastructure applications & awards

Just Recently Have applied Have receivedCommunity Looking purchased improved for SHIP SHIP fundsTown/City for land land access funds in past in pastKittery X XKennebunkport X XBiddeford XPortland X XFreeport X XXHarpswell XPhippsburg XBath X X XBoothbay Harbor X XBristol X X XBremenRockland X X XFriendshipSt. George X X XVinalhaven X XIslesboro X XSearsport X XStonington X X XSwans Island X X XSouthwest Harbor X X XWinter Harbor X X X XJonesport X X X XAddison X XMachiasport X X X XEastport X X

24% 28% 32% 76% 68%

Note: The last two columns represent data gathered from the Maine Department ofTransportation — outside the interviews.

The photo shows heavy use of the Vinalha-ven town dock.“Loading and

unloading gear onthe town dock is aproblem. The floats

are too small tohandle all of the

commercial &recreational use.”

southern and midcoast townswere more acutely facing thecombination of threats to access:higher taxes, acute developmentpressure, and competition from

growing recreational use of thewaterfront. All of the towns inYork, Cumberland, Sagadahoc,and Lincoln counties flaggedaccess as a problem.

• Just as access is provided in di-verse ways, the loss of accesstakes many forms. The list belowtries to inventory the “lost accessscenario” and those townswhich had this experience.

1. Access to intertidal areas lostthrough no trespassing signs andloss of traditionally used right-of-ways for clam/worm diggers:

Kittery, Harpswell, Bristol,Bremen and Addison.

12

2. New coastal property owners closingoff and/or contesting public access:

Kittery, Kennebunkport,Freeport, Harpswell, Bristol andSt. George.

3. Commercial fishing access tenuousthrough leases/agreements withsummer residents and yacht clubs:

Biddeford, St. George, WinterHarbor and Vinalhaven.

4. Singular reliance on a public facil-ity that is faced with competitionfrom recreational users:

Freeport, Boothbay Harbor andRockland.

5. Land-use access problem — parking:Kennebunkport, Harpswell,Phippsburg, Vinalhaven, South-west Harbor, Stonington andJonesport.

6. Conversion of working wharves toresidential and recreation:

Kittery, Kennebunkport,Harpswell, Phippsburg, Bristol,St. George, Vinalhaven,Stonington and Jonesport.

Note: Geography and environmentalconditions can often limit access:

Winter Harbor, Bath, Searsport.

V. What is the problem?

• Intense real estate pressure to usethe waterfront in non-commercial/water dependent ways.

• As fishing families sell waterfront,the move to town/public pier in-creases use pressure.

• Many public wharves must balanceand serve both commercial andrecreational use.

• Limited parking areas; increasedcompetition for parking as tourismgrows.

• For some areas with heavy tourismthere are limited moorings.

• Boats are getting bigger (both

a high diversity of marine-relatedgroups affected by access:

1. Jonesport (GF, L, SU, C, W, SW, M, S, LP, BD, BY, F&I, CO, O)

2. Machiasport (GF, L, SU, C, SW, M, S, LP, BD, BY, F&I, O)

3. Port Clyde (GF, L, SU, C, W, M, S, LP, BD, BY, F&I, CO)

4. Harpswell (GF, L, SU, C, W, SW, M, S, LP, BD, BY, F&I, CO)

5. Vinalhaven (L, SU, C, S, LP, BD, BY, F&I, CO, O)

6. Phippsburg (GF, L, SU, C, W, SW, M, S, LP, BD, BY, F&I)

7. Eastport (GF, L, SU, C, W, SW, M, S, BD, BY, F&I, O)

*GF=Groundfish, L=Lobster, SU=Sea Ur-chin, C=Clam, W=Worm, SW=Seaweed,M=Mussel, S=Scallop, LP= LobsterPounds, BD=Bait Dealers, BY=BoatYards, F&I=Fuel & Ice, CO=Co-ops,O=Other fisheries, NA=No Answer

Affected fisheries Count % of totalLobster harvesters 22 88%Sea urchin harvesters 17 68%Scallop harvesters 17 68%Clam/Worm/Seaweed harvesters 17 68%Bait dealers 17 68%Lobster pounds 15 60%Groundfish harvesters 15 60%Fuel and Ice 14 56%Mussel harvesters 12 48%Boatyards 12 48%Co-ops 9 36%Other 6 24%

VII. Current and future threatsto commercial fishing access.

During each interview town groupswere asked to check off which of thefollowing threats affect commercialfishing access now or in the future(development pressures, highertaxes, a decline in the commercial

commercial and recreational)• Increased cost for coastal towns

for legal challenges and access.• Higher property sales trigger re-

valuation, which can lead tohigher taxes.

• Towns and private wharves havecostly infrastructure and upkeep;challenge to keep self-sustaining.

• Towns and individual fishermencannot afford inflated marketprices for waterfront property.

VI.Who does this affect?

This question was asked to find whichfisheries businesses are or would beaffected by a loss of waterfront access.

Findings:• 88% (22 out of 25 towns sampled)

noted their lobster fleet.• 68% noted their urchin, scallop,

clam, worm, seaweed harvesters,and bait dealers.

• 60% noted their groundfish har-vesters and lobster pounds.

Another way to read the answershere is to note not only which fish-ing groups are most frequently im-pacted, but also which towns havethe largest number of fishing groupsdependent upon access. Towns with

“People are payingridiculous money forproperty. This offsetsthe tax base for every-

one else. Many kidswho grew up here

cannot afford to livehere [in Port Clyde].”

13

fishing industry, deterioration of in-frastructure, increased competitionfrom tourism or recreational use,conversion of residential/commercialto residential). As noted below, thetop three present threats were thesame for the future. It is worthnoting that currently taxes appearto be the top threat, while the futurethreat is in development. It is alsoimportant to note that thesethreats, particularly the developmentpressure, higher taxes, and changingdemand/use of the waterfront, arein fact all related and tied todemographic, local real estate market,and wider economic changes nowinfluencing coastal Maine.

Findings:• 72% (18 out of the 25 towns sam-

pled) identified higher taxes, in-creased competition from recrea-tional uses, and developmentpressure as the top three immedi-ate threats to commercial fishing

access.• As we move from the list of cur-

rent to future threats, the overallnumber of towns identifyingthreats grows for each issue inevery case.

• In the future, while the top threeissues remain the same, 84% ofthe towns list the number onethreat to access as developmentpressure.

VIII. Commercial fishing accessin two years and five years.

Here we asked towns to predict theirfutures in terms of commercial fish-ing access. Specifically we asked,will access decrease, stay the same,or increase? (See Figure 3, page 17.)The side-by-side maps display theresponses for both periods. We foundthat, in the end, responses to thisquestion reflected a range of levels ofoptimism or pessimism about a com-munity’s capacity to address commer-cial fishing access issues.

Findings:• 48% of the towns predict that ac-

cess in two years will be the same,whereas 36% of the towns predicta decrease, and 12% an increase.

• 44% of the towns predict a declinein five years, and 32% predict ac-cess will stay the same. 12% sayaccess will increase and 12% couldnot make a prediction.

“There is dailycompetition [on

Isleboro]for parkingamong contractors,

ferry traffic,recreational boaters

and fishermen.”

• Three towns predicted an increasein access in two years (Machiasport,Islesboro, and Addison) and fiveyears (Machiasport, Eastport, andPortland).

IX. Ways to protect access.

This final section of the town surveyidentifies which towns are planningto protect access, which towns are in-terested in public and private infra-structure investment, and what ifany other tools might a town want totry to help them with access issues.

Findings:• There is strong interest in working

on protecting commercial fishingaccess: 80% (20 of the 25 townssampled) from Kittery to Eastport,plan to address commercial fishingaccess in the future. This shows astrong town local interest in work-ing on these issues. Of those notincluded, 3 of the 5 towns havestrong rules in place (see Figure 4,page 17).

• Public infrastructure improvementgrants, such as the Small HarborImprovement Program (SHIP) area very important part of thestrategy to protect access: 68% ofthe towns have applied andreceived SHIP funds.

• The top improvements for publicly-owned access: expand parking, re-pair piers, dredging, repair floats,expand piers/wharves, create newparking, and land acquisition.

• The top improvements on the pri-vate sector side: property taxrelief and low interest loans werelisted as the number one improve-ment to assist commercial fishingaccess. This was followed byrepairing wharves and floats,dredging, and land acquisition.

Current threats to access # Towns Current threats to access # Towns1. Higher taxes 72% 18 1. Development Pressure 84% 212. Increased competition - 2. Increased competition -

tourism and recreation 68% 17 tourism and recreation 80% 203. Development pressure 68% 17 3. Higher taxes 76% 194. Decline in commercial 4. Decline in commercial

fishing 52% 13 fishing 64% 165. Conversion of property 36% 9 5. Infrastructure

deterioration 52% 136. Conversion of property 48% 12

14

• 64% (16 out of the 25 towns sam-pled) noted that specific privateimprovements would assist in access.

Summary of improvementsneeded in the public sector

Infrastructureimprovement Count % of totalExpand parking area 15 9.38%Repair pier/wharf 13 8.13%Dredging 12 7.50%Expand floats 12 7.50%Expand pier/wharf 12 7.50%Repair floats 11 6.88%Create new parking area 11 6.88%Land acquisition 10 6.25%Other improvements 10 6.25%Repair boat ramp 8 5.00%Build a boat ramp 6 3.75%Increase mooring field 5 3.13%Replace boat ramp 5 3.13%Cold storage facilities 4 2.50%Increase berthing space 4 2.50%Erosion control 4 2.50%Build a marina 3 1.88%Increase bulkhead 2 1.25%Permitting assistance 2 1.25%Expand trailer parking area 2 1.25%

X. Loan fund.

We asked towns if they thought alow interest loan fund would assisttheir commercial fishing access is-sues and to measure the importanceof such a fund.

Summary of improvementsneeded in the private sector

Infrastructureimprovement Count % of totalProperty tax relief 13 10.66%Low interest loans 13 10.66%Other improvements 12 9.84%Repair pier/wharf 11 9.02%Dredging 11 9.02%Repair floats 10 8.20%Land acquisition 10 8.20%Expand parking area 9 7.38%Expand pier/wharf 7 5.74%Permitting assistance 6 4.92%Cold storage facilities 6 4.92%Increase berthing space 5 4.10%Expand floats 5 4.10%Increase mooring field 3 2.46%None of these choices 1 0.82%

Findings:• 76% (19 out of the 25 towns sam-

pled) thought a low interest loanfund for private pier owners wouldhelp with access (see Figure 5).

• 64% said such a loan fund wouldbe important, 3 towns said criti-cal, 4 said not important.

Community Low interest loanfund importance

Portland ImportantBiddeford ImportantAddison ImportantMachiasport ImportantHarpswell ImportantBath CriticalEastport ImportantKittery ImportantSouthwest Harbor ImportantWinter Harbor ImportantPhippsburg ImportantSt. George ImportantJonesport CriticalBremen ImportantBristol ImportantBoothbay Harbor CriticalVinalhaven ImportantStonington ImportantSwans Island ImportantRockland Not ApplicableSearsport Not ApplicableFriendship Not ImportantIslesboro Not ImportantKennebunkport Not ImportantFreeport Not Important

XI. A list of tools.

Our last question asked those at-tending which tools, if any, wouldbe of interest to their town. The ta-ble below summarizes the interestlevel by tool. On the following pagethe table displays the level of inter-est (2 xx very interested, 1 x inter-ested) and the tools selected byeach town.

The picture shows the Stonington Fish Pierand its importance to the fishing community.

“Planning for the fishpier started in 1979

and constructionbegan in 1983. It

takes time to createa facility like this.”

15

# of towns # of townsvery somewhat

Waterfront access tool interested interested Totals PercentilesProperty tax relief 18 3 21 84%Planning assistance 13 6 19 76%Purchase access rights 13 5 18 72%Deeded access 9 7 16 64%A planning workshop on waterfront access tools 10 5 15 60%Transfer shoreside development inland 5 6 11 44%

A planning Transferworkshop on shoreside

Property Planning Purchase Deeded waterfront developmentCommunity tax relief assistance access rights access access tools inlandKittery XX X XX XX XKennebunkport XX XBiddeford X X XX X XX XPortland XX XX X XXFreeport XX XX XX XX XX XXHarpswell XX XX XX X XXPhippsburg XX X X XXBath XXBoothbay HarborBristol XX XX XXBremen XX XX X XRockland XX XXFriendship XX X XX XXSt. George XX X XX XXVinalhaven XX XX XX X X XIslesboro XX XX XXSearsport XX XX X X XXStonington X X XSwans Island X XX XXSouthwest Harbor XX XX XWinter Harbor XX XX X XX XX XJonesport XX XX XX XX XX XXAddison XX XX XMachiasport XX XX XX XX XX XXEastport X XX X X XX XPercentiles 84% 76% 72% 64% 60% 44%

“There is a strongcommitment to allowfishermen the right tomake a living. We arecurrently working on agrant to create berthing

space for transientboaters, which would take

some pressure off thecommercial area.”

This picture shows the Eastport breakwaterwhich provides important shelter to localfishing boats.

16

XII. Access for commercialfishing: creating baseline data.

To better understand commercialfishing access issues over time, weknew that we wanted to collect goodreliable quantitative information toaccompany our interviews with eachtown. Given the limited data to startwe set out to see if we could 1) findan existing database to update andtrack changes in access or if wewould need to 2) define and collect anew baseline of data to track com-mercial fishing access. We startedwith two previous studies that inves-tigated and documented waterfrontfacilities from Kittery to Eastport,Maine. The Maine Department ofTransportation (MDOT) conductedone study, “Maine Port DevelopmentStudy,” in 1985. The Southern MaineEconomic Development District andthe Eastern Maine Development Cor-poration conducted the second studyin 1998 for the Maine Department ofMarine Resources (MDMR) “MainePort Facilities Inventory and Analysis.”We developed a baseline of the namesand total number of waterfront facili-ties that provided access to thewater. We updated and added to thebaseline data during our meetingswith town harbor masters. In the end,however, we found that the facilitiesinventories were not a good methodto measure commercial fishing accessbecause they were never designed orintended to do so. Simply countingor tracking the number of waterfrontfacilities is not an adequate tool formeasuring and monitoring commercialfishing access in a particular commu-nity.

Instead, we have developed a sepa-rate baseline of data that does notcount facilities but carefully tracks

the total access available in eachcommunity. This means counting upthe total (berths + moorings + slips +tie-ups) in use for each town and bycategory of use, commercial or rec-reational. This baseline would thenallow us to monitor changing use andchanging access over time by com-mercial and recreational sectors.

Findings:• In 2002 the total current boat ac-

cess was 11,462 for the 25 townssurveyed.

• Of the 11,462 current boat access:42% are used by commercialboats and 58% are used by rec-reational boats.

• For individual towns, this balancebetween percentage of commercialuse and recreational use varies.In the majority of the surveyedtowns (15 out of the 25), recrea-tional boats use greater than 50%of the town’s water access. In 10of the 25 towns, commercial fish-ing boats utilize 50% of the town’swater access.

• Does the private or public providethis access? Another importantstatistic to track is the extent towhich current boat access is pro-vided by public facilities versusprivate businesses. Of the totalcommercial fishing access provided:25% is provided by publicly-owned facilities ( i.e. fish piers,boat ramps) 35% is provided byprivately-owned businesses (co-ops, private pier owners), and 40%is provided through private resi-dence.

• 19 of the 25 towns sampled relyon private residential wharves toprovide commercial fishing access.Of the 19 towns, 9 rely heavily onthis access (where over 50% of the

commercial fishing access is pro-vided privately).

• We recommend that an annual re-view of commercial fishing accessbe conducted in order to monitorchanges, issues and needs alongthe coast. In addition to the base-line current boat access (berths +moorings + slips + tie-ups), werecommend tracking commercialfishing access as a percentage ofcurrent boat access and recrea-tional use as a percentage of cur-rent boat access in order to trackthe extent to which this boat ac-cess serves commercial or recrea-tional boats. The changing per-centages can serve as a flag for atown, and raise additional ques-tions regarding the reasons forloss. This is why we believe it isimportant to also monitor chang-ing demand and supply for thisaccess.

• In terms of tracking and monitor-ing commercial fishing access is-sues in the future, we recommendworking with town harbor masters— they know their waterfrontcommunities best. Their service isinvaluable and they are often jug-gling multiple demands. We under-stand that the recommendation foradditional information fromharbor masters should be stand-ard, quick and easy (electronic).In fact, their input should be in-corporated into this reporting sys-tem and design.

17

Figure 1. Towns (64% of the 25 sampled) currently involved inefforts to secure access. The current efforts by towns do notinclude past or present SHIP grants.

Figure 2. Towns (64% of the 25 sampled) with a currentcommercail fishing access problem.

Figure 4. Towns (80% of the 25 sampled) planning to addresscommercial fishing access in the future.

Figure 5. Towns (76% of the 25 sampled) perceived importance ofa low interest loan fund for private pier owners.

Figure 3. Towns (of the 25 sampled) with a perceived commercialfishing access problem in 2 and 5 years.

25 town study maps

18

Key to town profiles

■ Percent of total current boat ac-cess used by commercial fishermenis the percent that is used by com-mercial fishing boats. The percent isalso given for all 25 towns.

■ Facilities is an inventory of thetotal number of commercial privateand public waterfront facilities in2002. These are facilities that pro-vide services or access to the waterfor a fee or free of charge. The sumof all towns is given as well.

■ Number of the commercial privateand public waterfront facilities dedi-cated to commercial fishing use isthe sum of facilities that just servecommercial fishing needs andaccess; recreational use is either notpermitted or simply does not occur.The sum of these facilities is givenfor all 25 towns as well.

■ Percent of commercial fishingaccess that is achieved throughprivate residence (pier/wharfs) thatare owned or leased by fishermen isaccess that is achieved throughnon-facilities that are privateresidence or property. The percent isgiven for all 25 towns as well.

■ Number of “other” access points

We created a “town profile” for each town and city we visited for the study.The town profile is intended to help each community see how they ratewhen compared to the other 24 towns that were part of the study. Theprofiles have four sections: Boat access & waterfront facilities data,Development pressure data, Waterfront issues & Commercial fishing accessvulnerability rating.

Section 1)Boat access & waterfront facilities data

■ Miles of coastline. This section lists the miles of coastline for each town.The figure includes islands and tidal rivers that are part of each town. Thetotal mileage of coastline for all 25 towns has also been included. Thesource of this information was the Maine State Planning Office (MaineCoastal Program).

■ Total commercial resource harvesters is the sum of all marine resourceharvesters in each town that hold a commercial license either with thetown or the state of Maine, or have a federal fishing permit. The sum of alllicenses and permits is given for all 25 towns as well. The sources of thisinformation were each town office, the Maine Department of MarineResources, and The National Marine Fisheries Service.

■ Fisheries impacted by loss of access are the fisheries that occur in eachtown on a commercial basis that were listed by the participants in eachinterview (see the key near the bottom of the profile).

■ Total current boat access is the total commercial and recreational boataccess that is currently in use. It is a sum of all accesses (registered moor-ings + berths + slips + tie-ups). This is not an indication of the potentialcapacity but is a documentation of what is currently in use. The sum of all25 towns is given as well. The sources of this information were the townharbor masters.

19

(beaches, land, property crossing)not actual facilities. This numberrepresents all of the other ways bywhich access is achieved. The sum ofthese is given for all 25 towns as well.

Section 2)Development pressure data

This section has data about popula-tion changes, change in housing,annual taxes per acre and land valu-ation per acre. The sources of thedata were the US Census Bureau andthe Maine Revenue Service. Theaverage values for the 25 towns wereprovided as well.

Section 3)Waterfront issues

This section of data reflects theresponses that were given by theinterview participants.

■ Commercial fishing access is aproblem. This was a yes or no answerbased on the perception of an accessproblem by elected officials. The per-centage of towns that responded“yes” is provided as well.

■ Current threats to commercialfishing access. These were the topthree threats that were identified byeach town. The top three answersfor all 25 towns are provided as well.

■ The town/city is planning to ad-dress commercial fishing access. Thiswas a yes or no answer based on theperception of elected officials aboutwhether the town is planning toaddress access. The percentage oftowns that responded “yes” is pro-vided as well.

■ The top three useful tools to ad-dress commercial fishing access wereidentified by each town. The topthree answers for all 25 towns areprovided as well.

Section 4)Commercial fishing accessvulnerability rating

The commercial fishing accessvulnerability rating is a number thatwas derived from a vulnerabilitymatrix that looked at commercialfishing access as a town/city priority,strength of town/city ordinances,town/city dedicated fish piers, de-velopment pressures (change inpopulation, change in housing units,tax cost per/acre, and valuationper/acre) and the number of har-vesters in each town/city. Thevulnerability ratings range from 1-7,with 1-3 having the lowest vulner-ability, 4-5 having moderate vulner-ability, and 6-7 having the highestvulnerability. (Please see the vulner-ability matrix and the pre-develop-ment pressure matrix for moredetails about the overall commercialfishing access vulnerability rating.)

20

Boat access & waterfront facilities dataKittery Kennebunkport

Miles of coastline 44.82 41.07Total commercial resource harvesters 71 73Fisheries impacted by loss of access L, LP, BD GF,L,BD,F&I

Boat accessTotal current boat access (moorings+berthing+slips 538 330+tie ups) commercial & recreational combinedPercent of total current boat access 17% 24%used by commercial fishermen

FacilitiesNumber of commercial private & public waterfront 14 12facilities in 2002Number of the commercial private & public waterfrontfacilities dedicated to commercial fishing use 4 2The percent of commercial fishing access that is 38% 67%achieved through private residence (pier/wharfs) thatare owned or leased by fishermenNumber of “other” access points (beaches, land 3 0property crossing) not actual facilities

Development pressure dataPercent population change 1990-2000 2% 11%Percent change in housing 1990-2000 12% 12%Annual taxes per acre in 2000 $1,054.36 $616.12Land valuation per acre in 2000 $28,716.39 $21,093.35

Waterfront issuesCommercial fishing access is perceived as a problem Yes YesCurrent threats to commercial fishing access Development pressures Higher taxes

A decline in thecommercial

Higher taxes fishing industryA decline in the Deterioration ofcommercial infrastructure (wharves &fishing industry piers)

Town/city is planning to address commercial fishing access Yes YesTop 3 useful tools to address commercial fishing access Property tax relief Property tax relief

Deeded access Planning assistance

Purchase access rights NA

Commercial fishing access vulnerability rating 7 7

* GF= Groundfish, L=Lobster, SU=Sea Urchin, C=Clam, W=Worm, SW=Seaweed, M=Mussel, S=Scallop, LP=Lobster Pounds, BD=Bait Dealers,BY=Boat Yards, F&I=Fuel & Ice, CO=Co-ops, O=Other fisheries, NA=No Answer

21

Biddeford Portland Freeport 25 Towns32.16 56.92 49.06 1,736.5783 271 186 4076GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,LP,BD,BY GF,L,SU,S,LP,BD,BY,F&I L,C,W,SW,M,LP,BD (*see key below)

335 500 560 11462

10% 30% 11% 42%

5 22 8 291

1 9 0 980% 0% 13% 38%

0 1 1 176

1% 0% 13% 3%6% 2% 9% 11%$1,058.06 $7,218.37 $658.42 $ 457.12$23,855.11 $75,818.11 $12,932.48 $12,244.93

Yes Yes Yes 64% of the towns said YesHigher taxes Development pressures Development pressures Higher taxesIncreased competition Increased competition Increased competition Increased competitionfrom tourism/recreational from tourism/recreational from tourism/recreational from tourism/recreationaluse use use use

Deterioration ofinfrastructure (wharves &

Development pressures piers) Higher taxes Development pressuresYes Yes Yes 80% of the towns said YesPurchase access rights Property tax relief Property tax relief Property tax reliefA planning workshop Planning assistance Planning assistance Planning assistance

on waterfront access toolsDeeded access Transfer shoreside Purchase access rights Purchase access rights

development inland7 4 6 (**see note below)

** The commercial fishing access vulnerability rating is a number that was derived from a vulnerability matrix that looked at commercial fishing ac-cess as a town/city priority, strength of town/city ordinances, town/city dedicated fish piers, development pressures (change in population, changein housing units, tax cost per/acre & valuation per/acre) & the # of harvesters in each town/city. The vulnerability ratings ranged from 1-7, with1-3 having the lowest vulnerability, 4-5 having moderate vulnerability and 6-7 having the highest vulnerability.

22

Harpswell PhippsburgMiles of coastline 218.55 111.79Total commercial resource harvesters 421 186Fisheries impacted by loss of access GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,M, GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,M,

S,LP,BD,BY,F&I,CO S,LP,BD,BY,F&I



Development pressure dataPercent population change 1990-2000 5% 16%Percent change in housing 1990-2000 8% 27%Annual taxes per acre in 2000 $408.86 $155.60Land valuation per acre in 2000 $19,101.19 $6,839.60

Waterfront issuesCommercial fishing access is perceived as a problem Yes YesCurrent threats to commercial fishing access Higher taxes Higher taxes

A decline in the commercial Conversion offishing industry. residential/commercial

property to residentialDevelopment pressures Development pressures


Planning assistance A planning workshopon waterfront access tools

Purchase access rights Planning assistanceCommercial fishing access vulnerability rating 4 5


23

Bath Boothbay Harbor Bristol 25 Towns31.84 27.81 59.65 1,736.5760 119 77 4076BD,F,O GF,L,SU,S,LP,BD,CO GF,L,SU,C,W,SW, (*see key below)

S,LP,BY,F&I,CO

136 1243 680 11462

11% 8% 30% 42%

8 30 13 291

1 5 6 980% 50% 58% 38%

0 0 4 176

-5% -1% 14% 3%3% 6% 28% 11%$2,109.07 $1,141.43 $167.74 $457.12$17,200.09 $46,015.64 $9,812.29 $12,244.93

Yes Yes Yes 64% of the towns said YesHigher taxes Higher taxes Development pressures Higher taxesA decline in the commercial Increased competition Conversion of Increased competitionfishing industry from tourism/recreational residential/commercial from tourism/recreational

use property to residential useDevelopment pressures Development pressures Higher taxes Development pressuresYes No Yes 80% of the towns said YesPlanning assistance Property tax relief Property tax relief Property tax reliefNA Deeded access Purchase access rights Planning assistance

A planning workshop Deeded access Purchase access rightsNA on waterfront access tools5 6 5 (**see note below)


24

Bremen RocklandMiles of coastline 47.26 7.48Total commercial resource harvesters 105 162Fisheries impacted by loss of access GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,M,S,LP,F&I,CO GF,L,SU,BD



Development pressure dataPercent population change 1990-2000 16% -5%Percent change in housing 1990-2000 33% 1%Annual taxes per acre in 2000 $82.93 $1,276.81Land valuation per acre in 2000 $4,888.63 $19,312.73

Waterfront issuesCommercial fishing access is perceived as a problem Yes NoCurrent threats to commercial fishing access Development pressures Development pressures

Increased competition A decline in thefrom tourism/recreational commercial fishing industryuse NA

Town/city is planning to address commercial fishing access No YesTop 3 useful tools to address commercial fishing access Property tax relief Planning assistance

Purchase access rights A planning workshop onDeeded access waterfront access tools

NA



25

Friendship St. George (Port Clyde) Vinalhaven 25 Towns57.76 124.88 (St. George) 188.82 1,736.57246 98 308 4076NA GF,L,SU,C,W,M,S,LP, L,SU,C,S,LP,BD, (*see key below)

BD,BY,F&I,CO BY,F&I,CO,O

197 380 320 11462

65% 66% 90% 42%

10 8 9 291

7 5 5 9868% 92% 96% 38%

6 0 0 176

10% 14% 15% 3%4% 13% 18% 11%$130.62 $223.66 $133.76 $457.12$6,883.72 $10,179.06 $6,462.98 $12,244.93

No Yes Yes 64% of the towns said YesNA Development pressures Higher taxes Higher taxesNA Conversion of Conversion of Increased competitionNA residential/commercial residential/commercial from tourism/recreational

property to residential property to residential useHigher taxes Increased competition from

tourism/recreational use Development pressureNo opinion Yes Yes 80% of the towns said YesProperty tax relief Property tax relief Property tax relief Property tax reliefPurchase access rights Purchase access rights Purchase access rights Planning assistanceDeeded access Deeded access Planning assistance Purchase access rights

3 5 3 (**see note below)


26

Islesboro SearsportMiles of coastline 69.93 15.65Total commercial resource harvesters 40 36Fisheries impacted by loss of access L,SU,C L,C,S



Development pressure dataPercent population change 1990-2000 4% 1%Percent change in housing 1990-2000 17% 11%Annual taxes per acre in 2000 $239.73 $143.82Land valuation per acre in 2000 $14,310.83 $2,199.91

Waterfront issuesCommercial fishing access is perceived as a problem No NoCurrent threats to commercial fishing access Higher taxes NA

Increased competition Deterioration offrom tourism/recreational infrastructure (wharves &use piers)NA NA

Town/city is planning to address commercial fishing access No YesTop 3 useful tools to address commercial fishing access Property tax relief Property tax relief

Purchase access rights A planning workshop onDeeded access waterfront access tools

Planning assistance



27

Stonington Swans Island Southwest Harbor 25 Towns79.01 82.24 18.69 1,736.57359 144 121 4076L,SU,C,W,SW,M,S L,C,W,SW,M,S,LP,BD,CO GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,S (*see key below)

588 200 527 11462

74% 75% 10% 42%

11 7 14 291

7 3 3 9832% 59% 0% 38%

10 10 0 176

-8% -6% 1% 3%6% 9% 2% 11%$314.16 $90.64 $489.47 $457.12$10,487.07 $3,036.96 $18,931.13 $12,244.93

Yes No No 64% of the towns said YesNA NA Higher taxes Higher taxesA decline in the NA Increased competition Increased competitioncommercial fishing NA from tourism/recreational from tourism/recreationalindustry use useNA Development pressures Development pressuresNo Yes Yes 80% of the towns said YesPurchase access rights Purchase access rights Property tax relief Property tax reliefA planning workshop on A planning workshop on Planning assistance Planning assistancewaterfront access tools waterfront access tools Deeded access Purchase access rightsTransfer shoreside Property tax reliefdevelopment inland3 5 3 (**see note below)


28* GF= Groundfish, L=Lobster, SU=Sea Urchin, C=Clam, W=Worm, SW=Seaweed, M=Mussel, S=Scallop, LP=Lobster Pounds, BD=Bait Dealers,BY=Boat Yards, F&I=Fuel & Ice, CO=Co-ops, O=Other fisheries, NA=No Answer

Winter Harbor JonesportMiles of coastline 45.02 110.53Total commercial resource harvesters 62 326Fisheries impacted by loss of access GF,L,SU,M,S,BY,F&I,CO GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,M,S,L

P,BD,BY,F&I,CO,O



Development pressure dataPercent population change 1990-2000 -15% -8%Percent change in housing 1990-2000 8% 3%Annual taxes per acre in 2000 $87.64 $58.76Land valuation per acre in 2000 $3,274.89 $1,281.88

Waterfront issuesCommercial fishing access is perceived as a problem No YesCurrent threats to commercial fishing access Higher taxes Higher taxes

Conversion of Deterioration ofresidential/commercial infrastructure (wharves &property to residential piers)Development pressures Development pressures


Planning assistance Planning assistanceDeeded access Purchase access rights


29** The commercial fishing access vulnerability rating is a number that was derived from a vulnerability matrix that looked at commercial fishing ac-cess as a town/city priority, strength of town/city ordinances, town/city dedicated fish piers, development pressures (change in population, changein housing units, tax cost per/acre & valuation per/acre) & the # of harvesters in each town/city. The vulnerability ratings ranged from 1-7, with1-3 having the lowest vulnerability, 4-5 having moderate vulnerability and 6-7 having the highest vulnerability.

Addison Machiasport Eastport 25 Towns107.07 80.62 27.94 1,736.57206 230 47 4076L,SU,C,W,SW,M,S,LP, GF,L,SU,C,SW,M,S, GF,L,SU,C,W,SW,M, (*see key below))BD,BY,F&I LP,BD,BY,F&I,O S,BD,BY,F&I,O

200 184 77 11462

77% 84% 91% 42%

8 5 13 291

5 0 2 9832% 11% 36% 38%

12 4 1 176

9% -1% -17% 3%20% 12% 1% 11%$33.20 $57.33 $695.71 $457.12$1,224.37 $1,415.10 $4,422.97 $12,244.93

No Yes No 64% of the towns said YesHigher taxes Higher taxes A decline in the commercial Higher taxesIncreased competition from Increased competition from commercial fishing Increased competitiontourism/recreational use tourism/recreational use Deterioration of infra- from tourism/recreationalDevelopment pressures Development pressures structure (wharves & piers) use

Increased competition from Development pressurestourism/recreational use

Yes Yes Yes 80% of the towns said YesProperty tax relief Property tax relief Planning assistance Property tax reliefPlanning assistance Planning assistance A planning workshop on Planning assistanceA planning workshop on Purchase access rights waterfront access tools Purchase access rightswaterfront access tools Deeded access4 4 5 (**see note below)

30

Development pressure matrix

Appendix

Town % Change score % Change score $ Tax cost/ score $ Valuation scorepopulation housing units acre 2000 /acre 20001990-2000 1990-2000

Kittery 2% 0 12% 1 $1,054.36 1 $28,716.39 1Kennebunkport 11% 1 12% 1 $616.12 1 $21,093.35 1Biddeford 1% 0 6% 0 $1,058.06 1 $23,855.11 1Portland 0% 0 2% 0 $7,218.37 1 $75,818.11 1Freeport 13% 1 9% 0 $658.42 1 $12,932.48 1Harpswell 5% 1 8% 0 $408.86 0 $19,101.19 1Phippsburg 16% 1 27% 1 $155.60 0 $6,839.60 0Bath -5% 0 3% 0 $2,109.07 1 $17,200.09 1Boothbay Harbor -1% 0 6% 0 $1,141.43 1 $46,015.64 1Bristol 14% 1 28% 1 $167.74 0 $9,812.29 0Bremen 16% 1 33% 1 $82.93 0 $4,888.63 0Rockland -5% 0 1% 0 $1,276.81 1 $19,312.73 1Friendship 10% 1 4% 0 $130.62 0 $6,883.72 0St. George 14% 1 13% 1 $223.66 0 $10,179.06 0Vinalhaven 15% 1 18% 1 $133.76 0 $6,462.98 0Islesboro 4% 1 17% 1 $239.73 0 $14,310.83 1Searsport 1% 0 11% 1 $143.82 0 $2,199.91 0Stonington -8% 0 6% 0 $314.16 0 $10,487.07 0Swans Island -6% 0 9% 0 $90.64 0 $3,036.96 0Southwest Harbor 1% 0 2% 0 $489.47 1 $18,931.13 1Winter Harbor -15% 0 8% 0 $87.64 0 $3,274.89 0Jonesport -8% 0 3% 0 $58.76 0 $1,281.88 0Addison 9% 1 20% 1 $33.20 0 $1,224.37 0Machiasport -1% 0 12% 1 $57.33 0 $1,415.10 0Eastport -17% 0 1% 0 $695.71 1 $4,422.97 0Averages 3% 11% $457.12 $12,244.93

NOTE: The scores are derived by taking the average of each category across the sample towns. Those with rates or #s below the avgreveal less pressure to convert and are given the score of 0, those with rates or #s above the average get a score of 1.

The city of Portland was removed from the tax/cost acre 2000 and valuation/acre 2000 averages to avoid skewing the data.

The total score for each town’s development pressure matrix is then applied to the overall vulnerability matrix table (Developmentpressure column).

31

Community Access as Strong Investment Dedicated Development Harvesters Totalpriority ordinances fish pier pressure points

Kittery 1 1 0 1 3 1 7Kennebunkport 1 1 0 0 4 1 7Biddeford 1 1 1 1 2 1 7Portland 0 0 1 0 2 1 4Freeport 1 0 0 1 3 1 6Harpswell 0 0 1 1 2 0 4Phippsburg 0 1 1 1 2 0 5Bath 0 1 0 1 2 1 5Boothbay Harbor 1 1 0 1 2 1 6Bristol 0 1 0 1 2 1 5Bremen 1 1 1 1 2 0 6Rockland 1 0 0 0 2 1 4Friendship 0 0 1 1 1 0 3St. George 0 1 0 1 2 1 5Vinalhaven 0 0 0 1 2 0 3Islesboro 1 0 0 1 3 0 5Searsport 1 1 0 1 1 1 5Stonington 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Swans Island 1 1 0 1 0 0 3Southwest Harbor 1 1 0 1 2 0 5Winter Harbor 1 1 0 1 0 0 3Jonesport 0 1 0 1 0 0 2Addison 0 1 0 1 2 0 4Machiasport 0 1 1 1 1 0 4Eastport 0 1 1 1 1 1 5

NOTE: SCOREThe higher the score the more vulnerable 6,7

4,5The lower the score the less vulnerable 2,3

Access as priority: a 0 score indicates those towns in which elected officials considered access a high priority issue for the town.Strong ordiances: a 0 score indicates those towns which use exclusive zoning as a tool to protect commercial fishing access.Investment: a 0 score indicates those towns which recently received funding from the Small Harbor Improvement Program to invest towardsimproving access.Dedicated fish pier: a 0 score indicates those towns which have a fish pier dedicated to or priortizes commercial fishing.Development pressure: a 0 score indicates those towns which are below the average (change in population, change in housing units, tax costper/acre & valuation per/acre) of the 25 towns surveyed.No. of Harvesters: the number of harvesters as a percentage of the town population. Those at or above the median (6%) received a 0 score.

Vulnerability matrix

32

Town/City:Date of interview:Name(s):

I) Current approach to waterfront pro-tection at the municipal level:

1.) Is your waterfront managed as part ofa town/city comprehensive plan?■ Yes■ No■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other If other please explain....

2.) Does the town/city currently manageaccess to the waterfront through zoning?■ Yes■ No■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other If other please explain....

3a.) If yes....Does the zoning include aspecial waterfront provision?■ Yes■ No■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other If other please explain....

3b.) If yes...... is it?:■ Exclusive■ Mixed use■ Setback only■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other If other please explain....

4.) Who in your community pays attention tocommercial fishing waterfront access issues?

■ Permanent waterfront committee■ Permanent harbor commission■ Ad hoc committee■ No one■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other If other please explain....

5a.) Are there any local efforts to shore upaccess?■ Yes■ No■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other If other please explain....

5b.) If yes....is it through:Please check all that apply.■ Current town/city property ownership■ Current state property ownership■ Sunset provision■ Don’t know■ Other If other please explain....

6.) Is there a waterfront access problemfor your commercial fishing community?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ OtherPlease describe.......

7.) If yes...What is the problem?Please describe.......

8.) If yes...Why is it a problem?Please describe.......

9.) If yes...Who in your community does

this problem affect?Please check all that apply.....■ Groundfish harvesters■ Lobster harvesters■ Sea Urchin harvesters■ Clam/Worm/Seaweed harvester■ Mussel harvesters■ Scallop harvesters■ Lobster pounds■ Bait dealers■ Boat yards■ Fuel & Ice■ Co-Op■ Other If other please explain....

10.) What are the current threats to losingcommercial fishing access to the water-front in your community?Please check all that apply.....■ Development pressures■ Higher taxes■ A decline in the commercial fishing

industry■ Deterioration of infrastructure

(wharfs, piers)■ Increased competition from tourism

or recreational use■ Conversion of residential/commercial

property to residential■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other Please describe.......

11.) What are the future threats to losingcommercial fishing access to the water-front in your community?Please check all that apply.....■ Development pressures■ Higher taxes■ A decline in the commercial fishing

Waterfront access questionnaire

33

industry■ Deterioration of infrastructure

(wharfs, piers)■ Increased competition from tourism or

recreational use■ Conversion of residential/commercial

property to residential■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other Please describe.......

12.) In your opinion, do you think com-mercial fishing access in 2, 5 & 10 yearswill decrease, stay the same or increase inyour community?Commercial fishing access will decrease■ 2 years ■ 5 years ■ 10 yearsCommercial fishing access will stay the same■ 2 years ■ 5 years ■ 10 yearsCommercial fishing access will increase■ 2 years ■ 5 years ■ 10 years■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other Please describe.......

II. Ways to protect access.

1a.) Is the town/city or group(s) in yourcommunity planning to address commer-cial fishing access issues in the future?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable

1b.) If yes...what is planned and by whom?

2a.) In your opinion are there any spe-cific improvements that could be made toassist private commercial or private com-mercial/residential owners in maintainingcommercial fishing access?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable

2b.) If yes...What are some improvements?Please check all that apply...■ Repair pier/wharf■ Repair floats■ Expand pier/wharf

■ Expand floats■ Expand parking area■ Increase bulkhead■ Increase berth space■ Increase mooring field■ Land acquisition■ Dredging■ Low interest loans■ Property tax relief■ Permitting assistance■ Cold storage facilities■ Other improvementsPlease describe.......

3a.) In your opinion are there any specificinfrastructure improvement projects thatwould help preserve or create public com-mercial fishing access in your town/city?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable

3b.) If yes...What are some improvements?Please check all that apply■ Repair pier/wharf■ Repair floats■ Expand pier/wharf■ Expand floats■ Repair boat ramp■ Replace boat ramp■ Build a boat ramp■ Expand parking area■ Expand trailer areas■ Create new parking■ Increase bulkhead■ Increase berth space■ Increase mooring field■ Land acquisition■ Erosion control■ Dredging■ Building a marina■ Low interest loans■ Property tax relief■ Permitting assistance■ Cold storage facilities■ Other improvementsPlease describe.......

4.) Do you think a low interest loan fundfor private pier owners would help protectcommercial fishing access to the waterfront?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion

■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other Please describe.......

5.) How important do you think such aloan fund is?■ Critical■ Important■ Not important■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable■ Other Please describe.......

6a.) Do you think there is anyone in par-ticular whom we should follow up withabout a low interest loan fund?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable

6b.) If yes...please list who:

7.) Would you be interested in any of thefollowing tools or test ideas to helppreserve commercial fishing access to thewaterfront in your community?

Very Somewhat NotPlanning assistance ■ ■ ❚

Property tax relief ■ ■ ■

Deeded access ■ ■ ■

Purchase access rights ■ ■ ■

Transfer shore side development inlandkeeping the waterfront accessible.

■ ■ ■

A planning workshop on waterfrontaccess tools. ■ ■ ■

Other ■

Please describe.......

8a.) Is there anything else (not discussedin this survey) that may assist your townin preserving commercial fishing access tothe waterfront?■ Yes■ No■ No Opinion■ Don’t Know■ Not Applicable

8b.) If yes...please list what:

34

Acknowledgements

Municipal participants

FreeportJay Pinkham-Harbor MasterDale C. Olmstead Jr.-Town Manager

HarpswellArthur Dodge-Harpswell Marine

Resource CommitteeGeorge Swallow-Chairmen of

Harpswell SelectmenWesley Coffin-Harpswell Harbor &

Waterfront CommitteePeter Darling-Harpswell Harbor &

Waterfront CommitteeJim Wallace-Harpswell Harbor &

Waterfront CommitteeDavid Wessel-Harpswell Harbor &

Waterfront CommitteeTelden Wessel-Harpswell Harbor &

Waterfront CommitteeBurr Taylor-Harpswell Harbor &

Waterfront CommitteeJoe Peterson-Harbor Master

KitteryPhillip O McCarthy-Town ManagerMilton Hall-Chairman of the Port

AuthorityJohn McCollett-Harbor Master

BremenDale Witham-Harbor Master, Harbor

Committee

Steve Barnes-Shellfish Warden,Harbor Committee

Boothbay HarborRoss Maddocks-Harbor MasterDabney Lewis-Code Enforcement

Officer

FriendshipStephen P. Lash-Planning BoardStephen Hensel-Planning BoardWilliam N, Rourke-Planning BoardTheron Thibodeau-Planning Board

Diane F. Cowan-Planning BoardWalter Foster-Chairman

Planning BoardKyle Martin-Harbor Master

St. George (Port Clyde)David P. Schmanska-Harbor Master

IslesboroDavid Sleeper-Harbor MasterMark Umbach-Chairman of the

Harbor CommitteeKathleen Reardon-Island Institute

FellowWilliam Boardman-Codes Enforce-

ment OfficerRobert Achorn-Assistant Harbor Mas-ter

KennebunkportJim Nadeau-Kennebunk River

Harbor Master

David Billings-Cape PorpoiseHarbor Master

Brian Shaw-Codes EnforcementOfficer

BiddefordMarshall Alexander-Harbor MasterBill Day-Chairman of the Harbor

CommissionMike Goulet-Harbor CommissionBruce E. Benway-City Manager

RocklandCarol L. Maines-City CouncilPeter Mulhearn-Chairman of the

Harbor CommissionPete Thibodeau-Harbor MasterRodney Lynch-Community

Development DirectorThomas J. Hall-Town Manager

VinalhavenMarjorie E. Stratton-Town ManagerBarbara Davidson-SelectpersonKevin O’Hearn-Harbor MasterWesley Robinson-Code Enforcement

Officer

BristolStephen A. Brackett-Harbor Master

(John’s Bay)Stephen R. Hope-Harbor Master

(Back Cove & Long Cove)Christopher C. Gifford-Harbor Master

(New Harbor)

35

Robert J. Ball-Harbor Master (RoundPond)

Jack Tedrow-Harbor CommitteeKris Poland-Town AdministratorChad Hanna-SelectmenCraig Elliot-SelectmenCindy Brackett-Commissioner of

Parks & Recreation

PhippsburgAlan Douglass-SelectmenMichael W. Rice-SelectmenProctor W. Wells-SelectmenJohn Young-Town AdministratorBob Cummings-ResidentCraig Chapin-Resident

BathJohn Bubier-City ManagerJim Upham-City PlannerJeffrey Shires-Harbor Master

SearsportRobert Ramsdell-Chairman of the

Shellfish CommitteeWayne Hamilton-Harbor MasterEdward Storey-Town Manager

StoningtonSteve Johnson-Town Harbor Master/

Pier ManagerRichard Avery- Town ManagerRichard Martin-Publisher Commercial

Fisheries NewsSusan Jones-Editor Commercial

Fisheries News

Swans IslandRichard Jellison-Harbor MasterDexter Lee-Selectmen

Southwest HarborGene Thurston-Harbor MasterKenneth Minier-Town Manager

Winter HarborRoger Barto-Town Manager

Burt Allaire-Planning BoardAlan Johnson-Chairman of Harbor

CommitteePeter Drinkwater-Chairman of

Comprehensive PlanDale F. Torrey Sr.-Harbor MasterJeff Alley-Planning BoardWinter Harbor Lobster Co-op

JonesportRussel Batson-Harbor MasterRalph Smith-Chair of SelectmenHoward Mills-SelectmenMike Kirby-Planning Board

MachiasportArthur Totman-Harbor MasterDouglass Campbell-Chair of

Selectmen

EastportGeorge “Bud” Finch-City ManagerJohn Bishop-Chair of the Harbor

CommitteeStanley MacNichol-Harbor Master

AddisonOscar Look-Harbor MasterDave Thompson- SelectmenRonald Carpenter-Board of

Assessment Review

PortlandBenjamin Snow-Manager, Marine

Operations & AdministrationJudith Harris-Fishing Industry

Program ManagerRichard Ingalls-Port of Portland

Harbor Commission

Other input and assistance

Eric Ortman-The Greater PortlandCouncil of GovernmentsDianne Tilton-Sunrise County

Economic CouncilChristopher Spruce-Sunrise County

Economic CouncilBrian Nutter-Maine Department of

TransportationHeidi Bray-Maine Department of

Marine ResourcesHelen Holt-Maine Department of

Marine ResourcesRichard Sherwood-Maine State

Planning OfficeRich Baker-Maine Department of

Environmental ProtectionValarie Lamont-Center for Real

Estate Studies at University ofSouthern Maine

John Wainer-Maine State HousingAuthority

Richard Faucher-Maine RevenueService

Other Coastal Enterprises, Inc.Staff

Lisa Page- Research AssociateTim Manson-Information Systems

CoordinatorMartha Fenno-Office CoordinatorLiz Valliere-Office AssistantJill Tosto-Office AssistantAlice Hudyberdi-Office CoordinatorResearch & Development Group

38

Maine Coastal ProgramState Planning OfficeState House Sation 38, Augusta, Maine 04333-0038Phone: (207) 287-1486 Fax: (207) 287-8059www.state.me.us/mcp/index.html

Coastal Enterprises, Inc.Fisheries Project2 Portland Fish Pier, Suite 201, Portland, Maine 04101Phone: (207) 772-5356 Fax: (207) 772-5503www.ceimaine.org

CEI CoastalEnterprises,Inc. Maine Coastal Program

A Study of Working Waterfronts in 25 Maine Communities The changing constituency in coastal Maine...

Documents

Transcript of A Study of Working Waterfronts in 25 Maine Communities The changing constituency in coastal Maine...