Maine's Blue Carbon Future

Erwin, A., Frignoca, I.*, Kenyon, H.*, Gassett, P., Gabrielson, J., Tatgenhorst, H., Brewer, A., Price, N., Johnson, B., Domeyer, D., Arnold, S., Feurt, C., Enterline, C., & Puryear, K. (2025, Oct). "Maine’s Blue Carbon Future" [Unpublished White Paper, Version 1.2] Proceedings of the Maine Blue Carbon Network, Coastal Carbon Ecosystems Symposium, October 21, 2025.

Abstract

Maine’s coastal ecosystems—salt marshes, eelgrass meadows, and kelp forests—are critical “blue carbon” landscapes that store carbon, sustain fisheries, buffer shorelines, and and provide myriad ecosystem and community benefits and services. Yet these habitats are degrading at alarming rates, and face continued risks with implications for ecological resilience and economic stability. This white paper, prepared by Maine’s Blue Carbon Network, reviews Maine’s current policies, compares them to approaches in other states, and outlines potential next steps to strengthen planning, management, and funding for blue carbon protection and restoration. Maine’s existing framework includes integration of blue carbon into the state’s climate action plan and coastal management program, statutory requirements for mapping and greenhouse gas accounting, and support for restoration projects through regulatory mechanisms and limited funding programs. However, compared to peer states with targeted blue carbon initiatives, dedicated task forces, or market-based funding strategies, Maine’s approach remains fragmented. The paper identifies opportunities to consolidate strategies into a unified blue carbon plan, expand monitoring and mapping to include additional blue carbon ecosystem types, set explicit habitat restoration targets, or address regulatory barriers to resilience/restoration projects. It also recommends exploring sustainable financing mechanisms, from dedicated state funds and tax incentives to leveraging private investment. By pursuing these measures, Maine can further safeguard its iconic coast, sustain vital fisheries, and ensure that blue carbon ecosystems contribute meaningfully to climate mitigation and adaptation goals.

Introduction: Purpose and Scope

Maine’s Blue Carbon Network[1] prepared this white paper to examine the state’s blue carbon policy, compare it to other states, and identify potential next steps to protect and restore blue carbon ecosystems.[2] Maine tracks the value of some blue carbon—salt marsh soil, eelgrass soil and farmed seaweed soil—in its greenhouse gas inventory. The State could quantify additional blue carbon (such as wild seaweed) and take further action to conserve and protect blue carbon habitat. These actions ensure blue carbon ecosystems continue to provide critical fisheries habitat, buffer against storm surge, and absorb carbon to buffer acidifying waters. This Paper is intended to guide discussion at the Blue Carbon Symposium on October 21, 2025. The Paper includes three attachments: (1) a chart detailing state policies and laws by category, including planning, management, and funding; (2) a graphic of Maine’s carbon budget; and (3) a chart summarizing Maine’s blue carbon planning, management and funding with potential next steps.

Background: Defining the Importance of Coastal Blue Carbon

Nationally, coastal blue carbon is defined as the carbon captured by living coastal and marine organisms and stored in coastal ecosystems. This happens in two ways: through carbon sequestration (the process of capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, measured as a rate of carbon uptake per year); and carbon storage (the long-term confinement of carbon in plant materials or sediment, measured as a total weight of carbon stored). Most coastal carbon is stored in soil, not in plant biomass.[3]

Maine defines blue carbon as “carbon that is removed from the atmosphere through the growth of marine plants, including macroalgae, and burial of organic carbon in soils in coastal ecosystems such as salt marshes and seagrass beds.”[4] In its 2020 Maine Won’t Wait climate action plan, Maine set a goal to better understand the immense value of coastal blue carbon ecosystems including how they absorb carbon and rebalance excess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mitigate acidifying waters in nearshore environments, and hold sediment in place during intense storms.[5]

Despite their importance, the regions’ salt marshes and eelgrass beds are degrading and disappearing. For example, by 2015 the region lost about 50% of its estuarine marshes from human activities, and are projected to lose about 57% more coverage by 2100.[6] Eelgrass meadows also are disappearing or receding at alarming rates in response to human-induced factors.[7] For example, Casco Bay lost 54.5% of its eelgrass beds between 2018 and 2022, and 67% of its beds since 1993.[8] Maine’s midcoast region lost 59.9% of eelgrass coverage between 2005 and 2023.[9] Kelp forests, home to numerous finfish and invertebrate fisheries species, have experienced substantive losses across several species in southern Maine, and are being persistently replaced by less palatable, lower value biomass, and non-structuring forming turf algae.[10] These losses threaten the value of these areas as high quality habitats, buffers against erosion and storm surge, and blue carbon stock.

The remainder of this paper reviews the steps Maine is taking to address this problem and potential next steps for policy-makers to consider.

Policy: Maine Blue Carbon Policy Compared to Other States

This section examines Maine’s policy compared to other states in three categories – Planning, Management, and Funding – and suggests potential next steps. For purposes of this paper, management includes laws and regulations that support or implement policy.

Planning

A natural resources plan typically lays out how to manage and use natural resources in a particular area—for example at a local, regional or state level. Starting with a plan ensures state actions target priority recommendations, avoid redundancies, best use available staffing and budgets, and track progress. Plans have no regulatory teeth, but inform management and funding.

Maine’s Approach

Maine approaches blue carbon planning through its climate action plan and coastal management plan as summarized below.

Maine considers blue carbon as part of the State’s comprehensive climate action plan known as Maine Won’t Wait. The Maine Climate Council (MCC) developed its initial plan in 2020. It built upon prior efforts to address climate change.  The MCC is informed by an interdisciplinary Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and six working groups. The Coastal and Marine Working Group (CMWG) considered the roles of blue carbon ecosystems and recommended studying them to better understand how they sequester carbon.[11] In 2024, the MCC updated Maine’s climate action plan[12] and the CMWG updated its coastal blue carbon strategies.[13] Maine Won’t Wait Strategy E, Protect the Environment and Natural and Working Lands and Waters in Maine, contains recommendations that support protecting and restoring blue carbon ecosystems. The CMWG wove their recommendations into broader strategies to conserve priority natural lands so blue carbon ecosystems would get equal footing with efforts to conserve terrestrial habitats. Moreover, the recommendations explicitly focus on the many essential values of these ecosystems and their critical role in sustaining our coastal economy and way of life. The below chart highlights Strategy E actions that relate to blue carbon.

Strategy E.1. Increase the total acreage of conserved natural and working lands in the state to 30 percent by 2030

• Focus land conservation on areas that are richly biodiverse, connect to other conserved areas, have high potential to draw back and store carbon

• Restore and increase the resilience of coastal, marine, and inland habitats, prioritizing areas that connect to already conserved lands and waters, promote ecosystem connectivity and health, and allow for upland migration of saltwater marshes as sea levels rise.

• Marine areas support the livelihoods of Maine fishermen and harvesters and feed those harvesting for sustenance. As the climate changes, simply protecting coastal, marine, and inland ecosystems is no longer sufficient. Maine must prioritize habitat restoration and resilience, aiming to repair and rebuild along with mitigating harm.

• Maine should convene a statewide process by the end of 2025; through collaboration across state agencies, the Wabanaki Nations, and large landowners, this process should develop a landscape conservation blueprint, inclusive of inland and coastal habitats, for the conservation and management of key places. The process should identify important habitat types, taking into account multiple habitat benefits, including blue carbon (carbon storage), habitat connectivity (to allow plants and animals to move across the landscape to find the places they need to thrive as these habitats change over time), biogenic habitats (like eelgrass, shellfish bars, and kelp forests), support for rare species, and the significance to Maine’s coastal fisheries.

Strategy E.6. Better monitor inland and coastal and marine ecosystems to increase resilience

• Improve tracking and decision-making by creating new monitoring programs to fill data gaps, including capturing changes occurring in ecosystems and the effects of extreme weather events on people and natural resources.

• Increase technical assistance and capacity to provide guidance on climate solutions to communities and natural resources industries, including through nature-based solutions.

Maine also has a coastal management program, called the Maine Coastal Program (MCP), through a voluntary federal-state partnership. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMA) in 1972 to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.”[14] The CZMA encourages states to effectively exercise “their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone[.]"[15] States voluntarily participate in the CZMA by creating their own coastal programs, which are uniquely designed to “best address their coastal challenges and regulations” and may include various policies involving ocean resources, energy, ports and harbors, protected areas, and more.[16]

Every five years, MCP develops a Strategic Outlook (also known as the CZMA Section 309 Assessment and Strategy), assessing the status of various topics, reviewing past performance, and meeting with partner organizations, stakeholders and other state agencies to develop priorities and strategies for program innovation and improvement. Its 2026-2030 Draft Strategic Outlook has assessed wetlands management as high priority and identified strategies to: 1) expand the capacity to monitor, conserve, and restore wetlands; 2) improve the state’s ability to manage wetlands at the landscape scale; and 3) work at the local and practitioner level to incentivize low-impact development.

In summary, with respect to planning, Maine has two plans to protect blue carbon ecosystems that are related but not necessarily harmonized with one another.

Other States

Some states have more advanced blue carbon plans.  For example, New Jersey has a Strategy to Advance Carbon Sequestration on its Natural and Working Lands,[17] which is similar to Maine’s Strategy E in its climate action plan, but goes a step further.  New Jersey will develop an Action Plan to implement its strategy[18] and track progress by: (1) issuing progress reports, (2) applying a carbon accounting and tracking tool, (3) using RGGI tracking via New Jersey RGGI Climate Investments online dashboard, and (4) advancing policy. North Carolina’s action plan[19] has similar recommendations to Maine’s but includes incentives to protect and restore coastal habitats.[20] Maryland has a Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy Advisory Commission[21] to facilitate and accelerate the scale and pace of green and blue infrastructure projects for many purposes including to sequester carbon. Hawaii has a greenhouse gas sequestration task force tasked with identifying policies to increase greenhouse gas sequestration from natural habitats.[22]

Next Steps

Maine might consider consolidating its Blue Carbon strategies into a single plan and forming a commission or task force to develop and advance blue carbon planning, management and policies. The task force could build upon the Blue Carbon Network and make it a long term public-private collaboration that continues to provide the best available science, restoration and resilience techniques, and training or technical support for frontline communities and others engaged in work to make blue carbon ecosystems resilient to change/loss.

Management

Natural resources management considers the sustainable use and protection of coastal and marine resources. Maine’s definition of protected natural resources includes coastal sand dune systems, coastal wetlands, and significant wildlife habitat. Management also may occur through a broader array of regulatory approaches such as those set forth below.

Maine’s Approach

Maine manages blue carbon ecosystems through its mandated mapping program, natural resources protection law, and work to participate in or fund restoration and resilience projects. These foundational measures allow Maine to quantify blue carbon as required by state law, as well as meet goals for carbon neutrality. In 2023, Maine passed a law requiring it to track and report its GHG emissions[23] and to be carbon neutral by January 1, 2045. The rule implementing that law requires the State to quantify the offset of blue carbon. Net GHG emissions in Maine must include estimates of emissions and sequestration from coastal waters (sedimentation and biomass; blue carbon) including salt marshes and eelgrass.[24] Sequestration of blue carbon is based on acreage of those ecosystems. Maine quantifies blue carbon as part of its biennial report to the legislature detailing its progress toward meeting statutory GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals.[25] In the biennial report, researchers set forth a net GHG inventory for 2016-2021. They estimated net GHG emissions for gross emissions, wood products, forestland, agriculture, urban, inland wetlands, inland waters, coastal wetlands, and coastal waters. The difference between carbon emitted and carbon sequestered from each of these categories was used to estimate the net carbon emissions. The report contains a graphic that summarizes whether each of these categories is a carbon emitter or remover.[26] This graphic shows that Maine’s forestlands and coastal wetlands (defined as salt marsh soil, eelgrass soil and farmed seaweed soil) are the only two categories that remove more carbon than they emit. As Maine gains the capacity to better quantify blue carbon stocks and account for carbon sequestered in vegetation and soil, the value of coastal blue carbon should increase.[27] 

Before Maine passed its carbon neutrality goal, it passed a law in 2021 requiring DEP to divide the coast into five regions and map salt marshes and eelgrass in each region in five year cycles.[28] Maine uses its mapping program to help calculate net GHG emissions. However, the mapping program also informs where to target actions to restore and protect habitats through other laws and programs, such as the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) and the Maine Coastal Program.

Maine also protects blue carbon ecosystems through NRPA.[29] Under this Act, the “Legislature…finds and declares that there is a need to facilitate research, develop management programs and establish sound environmental standards that will prevent the degradation of and encourage the enhancement of these resources. It is the intention of the Legislature that existing programs related to Maine's … significant wildlife habitat [and] coastal wetlands … continue and that the Department of Environmental Protection provide coordination and vigorous leadership to develop programs to achieve the purposes of this article.”[30] NRPA mandates that a permit is required when an "activity" will be located in, on or over any protected natural resource, or located adjacent to a coastal wetland.[31] Maine implements this law through a permit system following the standards set forth in 38 M.R.S. § 480-D and in Chapter 310, Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection.[32]

The Maine Coastal Program, initially discussed in the Planning section above, facilitates on-the-ground projects that benefit Maine's coastal communities.[33] MCP is a partnership among local, regional, and state agencies.[34] It collaborates with many private organizations, such as local land trusts and economic development groups, and supports coastal communities to “Restore Tidal Habitat Resilience.”[35] MCP provides technical and financial support and tools to assess restoration needs, evaluate opportunities, and plan for future action.[36] It also helps develop ways to integrate climate resilience into municipal planning.[37] MCP leads the Maine Salt Marsh Monitoring Network[38] which uses long-term study sites to assess the impacts of sea level rise and inform restoration and conservation investments.

In addition, there are two other informal networks that collaborate on management of salt marsh and eelgrass. The Tidal Marsh Monitoring Network, formed in 2023, has over 100 members and holds in person meetings twice per year to: 1) convene practitioners, scientists, resource managers, policy experts, and others to collaborate on restoration of Maine’s tidal marshes; 2) create a space to exchange information about initiatives, research, and projects; and 3) identify and begin to address challenges around tidal marsh restoration in Maine. Various subgroups work to identify training opportunities, create shared databases and a statewide tidal marsh restoration plan, coordinate restoration monitoring approaches, and more. The Seagrass Consortium formed in 2024. Its members drafted a Seagrass Action Plan with specific goals centered on the following themes: 1) Outreach, Engagement, and Advocacy; 2) Monitoring and Research; and 3) Protection and Restoration.

Other States

Some states have laws or plans that specifically require restoration of blue carbon ecosystems. For example, California’s Strategic Plan to Protect California's Coast and Ocean sets a goal to protect, restore or create an additional 10,000 acres of coastal wetlands by 2025, and to increase the acreage of coastal wetlands by 20% by 2030 and 50% by 2040.[39] In a similar vein, Oregon’s Global Warming Commission proposes that Oregon sequester at least an additional 5 MMTCO2e per year in Oregon's natural and working lands and waters by 2030 and at least 9.5 MMTCO2e per year by 2050 relative to a 2010 to 2019 baseline.[40] Importantly, the working group recommends that this goal be separate from, and in addition, to Oregon's sector-based emission reduction goals.

Other states have laws quite specific to certain blue carbon habitat. New York’s Seagrass Protection Act requires its Department of Environmental Conservation to designate seagrass management areas[41] and adopt a management plan that guides the development of rules and regulations.[42] Connecticut’s eelgrass law requires the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to adopt regulations that protect and restore eelgrass and develop a restoration plan.[43] Connecticut also has a Tidal Wetlands Act that requires the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, within available appropriations and bond authorizations, to restore and enhance wetlands.[44] Similarly, Florida’s Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection works with other agencies to improve seagrass protection, augment habitat recovery through proven restoration techniques, and increase public awareness of the importance of seagrass.[45] And Virginia’s Marine Resources Commission adopted into regulation criteria for transplanting submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to enhance or restore Chesapeake Bay.[46]

Some states have laws that protect eelgrass through prohibitions. For example, Florida protects eelgrass beds[47] by citing vessel operators who scar them with a violation of state boating law.[48] Maryland requires its Department of Natural Resources to periodically delineate protection zones in which specific clam and oyster gear are prohibited.[49] 

Next Steps

The 2024 Maine Won’t Wait plan sets a goal of increasing the total acreage of conserved natural and working lands in the state to 30 percent by 2030. This now includes blue carbon ecosystems. First, Maine should consider whether our current definition of blue carbon can be expanded, for example to include mudflats.[50] Then, based on the examples from other states, Maine should contemplate whether it needs to set goals specific to protecting and restoring blue carbon ecosystems similar to the measures adopted by California, Connecticut and Florida. Maine also should consider whether, similar to Maryland, it wants to periodically designate protection zones to foster blue carbon restoration.

Also, the mapping law could be expanded to include other habitat and species. For example, Maine could consider if it can expand its mapping law to include quantifying wild macroalgae.[51] If wild macroalgae were mapped, Maine might then consider how to include this into its GHG calculation. Moreover, Maine might contemplate whether other mapping programs are sufficient to estimate biomass and blue carbon potential.[52]

Finally, public-private collaborations coast-wide are exploring potential reasons that blue carbon ecosystems are failing and how to restore them for the long term. Maine should track these efforts, participate in or provide technical assistance to support them, and then foster transfer of knowledge through trainings and materials. Researchers have identified regulatory barriers to restoration and resilience projects that must be addressed.[53] Maine should establish a process to address these barriers including potential regulatory reforms that facilitate rather than impede resilience and restoration.

Funding

Blue carbon conservation, restoration and adaption costs money and requires long term commitment. Maine has some funding sources for this work, but must consider a broader array of funding and incentives.

Maine’s Approach

Maine provides primary funding for land conservation through its Land for Maine's Future (LMF) Program. LMF’s core focuses are to conserve “the prime physical features of the Maine landscape and recognizing that working lands and public access to these lands is critical to preserving Maine's quality of life.”[54] The program began in 1987 with projects of statewide significance, broadened in 1999 to include projects of local and regional significance, and expanded in 2005 to add a working waterfront pilot program.[55] LMF gained further strength in 2023, when its funds moved to a designated trust fund so it could more easily accept private donations and earn interest on undisbursed funds.[56] Nonetheless, the LMF program struggles to find consistent financing through bonds and sometimes general fund appropriations. LMF has conserved 30 working waterfront properties, but has not had a specific focus on conserving blue carbon habitat.

Funding schemes that more directly relate to blue carbon include NRPA, the MCP, and non-government funds. NRPA requires permittees to pay for unavoidable harm[57] caused by development. The payments finance restoration, enhancement, creation or preservation of an area that functions like the area harmed by development. These “compensation projects” may be on or off site and/or an in lieu fee (ILF) project. ILF funds go into the Maine Natural Resource Conservation Program (MNRCP), which is co-managed by DEP and the US Army Corps of Engineers and administered by The Nature Conservancy. MNRCP finances many projects at the community level, including salt marsh and eelgrass restoration.[58] The MCP distributes federal funds matched by state and local sources.[59] These funds do not meet existing needs and must be augmented by other sources.[60]

Finally, private foundations also fund blue carbon research, restoration and resilience.  For example, in 2024, a group of partners consisting of Casco Bay Estuary Partnership, Friends of Casco Bay, DEP, Manomet, and COBALT/Team Zostera received a two year grant through the Maine Coastal and Marine Climate Fund (MCMCF) to study 3 eelgrass beds in Casco Bay and pilot a small scale restoration project. The pilot project has led to an invitation for a larger grant that will expand on these restoration efforts. MCMCF also funded a 2 acre salt marsh restoration project in Wells, Maine[61] to combat the impacts of coastal flooding and habitat degradation. The effort is Maine’s first Beneficial Use of Dredge Material project, a technique that involves placing sediment on the marsh surface to increase elevation to promote the natural ebb and flow of the tides.

Other States

Some states have market-based funding schemes more specifically designed to protect coastal blue carbon and acknowledge its role in offsetting GHG emissions.  In 2021, Washington enacted the Climate Commitment Act to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Act includes an economy-wide cap-and-invest program, which creates a cap on climate pollution that goes down over time. The state’s largest polluters have the option to update their operations so they pollute less, or purchase pollution allowances through quarterly auctions. Purchases of allowances are put into a Climate Investment Account.[62] That account can direct money to the Natural Climate Solutions Account which dedicates funds specifically for protection and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems.[63]

Like Maine, New Jersey participates in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).[64] New Jersey has developed a Strategic Funding Plan to identify how the state will invest its share of the RGGI auction proceeds. New Jersey dedicates 10% its RGGI auction proceeds to the stewardship and restoration of the state’s forests and tidal marshes.[65]

Maryland also participates in RGGI, however, the State found that RGGI auction proceeds alone cannot fund marsh restoration. Therefore, the State is exploring “conservation finance,” also known as “nature-based solutions finance.”[66] This type of funding includes traditional grants and market-based approaches. The State intends to create a clearinghouse with a centralized platform that identifies shovel-ready restoration projects to be matched with interested investors. If successful, this clearinghouse could be scaled to a national level.

Louisiana may have the strongest authority to raise funds for blue carbon protection and restoration. Louisiana’s Constitution establishes a Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund to provide a dedicated, recurring source of revenues for the development and implementation of a program to protect and restore Louisiana's coastal area.[67] State law then establishes a detailed funding scheme for this fund which includes state mineral revenues, federal revenues that are received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf energy production, various payments related to the BP oil spill, state surplus when available, and other sources.[68] Money in the fund is spent on projects identified in the Louisiana Coastal Master Plan which is focused on protection and restoration of the coast, including blue carbon habitat.

Next Steps

Maine could increase state funding to conserve and restore blue carbon ecosystems. The Maine Coastal Program could be a central hub for blue carbon information, including blue carbon programs, technical assistance, and funding or tax credit information. For this to occur, the MCP must have adequate funds. Maine must continue to match federal funds, and should plan to make up any shortfall if federal funds are not available.

Maine’s LMF could explicitly consider blue carbon habitat, and should have consistent long-term funding so the program does not need to compete for bond money almost every legislative session. Similar to New Jersey, Maine might consider whether it could allocate some of its RGGI funds to LMF or another fund for the dedicated purpose of enhancing blue carbon sequestration.[69]

In terms of new funding, Maine might consider three approaches: (1) creating a dedicated fund for blue carbon ecosystem conservation and restoration; (2) looking beyond market based approaches; and (3) expanding the tree growth tax program to cover blue carbon ecosystems. Maine law currently establishes a RGGI trust fund. However, this fund should be able to direct funds to other accounts that have dedicated blue carbon goals. Additionally, RGGI (or other market-based programs) should not be solely relied upon for funding. Maine projects already attract private investors; Maine should consider ways to continue this private financing momentum. Maine could create a clearinghouse for blue carbon projects; essentially a one stop shop for private investors. Lastly, the structure for Maine’s tree growth tax program could be expanded to include blue carbon ecosystems. Currently, a property owner can enroll their property in the program with an approved woodland resource action plan and receive tax benefits in return. Maine has many private landowners on the coast that may be drawn to tax incentives for proper management of their privately owned marshes and eelgrass beds.[70]

Conclusion

Maine’s coastal economy and way of life depend upon healthy blue carbon ecosystems. Salt marshes and eelgrass are disappearing or degrading at alarming rates. Sometimes the causes are known and sometimes we are still striving to understand the problem. Maine has identified this crisis through its mapping program, Maine Coastal Program, and climate action plan. It has taken preliminary steps to protect and restore blue carbon which must be built upon.

With respect to planning, Maine should consider whether to have an on-going advisory council and single master plan to advance blue carbon actions, one that harmonizes existing policy and prioritizes achievable next steps.

With respect to management, Maine should contemplate whether it needs to set goals specific to protecting and restoring blue carbon ecosystems similar to the measures adopted by California, Connecticut and Florida. Maine also should consider whether, similar to Maryland, it wants to periodically designate protection zones to foster blue carbon restoration and whether and how to quantify the blue carbon value of wild seaweed and mudflats. Finally, public-private collaborations coast-wide are testing why blue carbon ecosystems are failing and how to restore them for the long term. Maine should track these efforts, participate in or provide technical assistance to support them, and then foster transfer of knowledge through trainings and materials. Researchers have identified regulatory barriers to restoration and resilience projects that must be addressed. Maine should establish a process to address these barriers including potential regulatory reforms that facilitate rather than impede resilience and restoration.

With respect to funding, Maine could increase state funding to conserve and restore blue carbon ecosystems. The Maine Coastal Program could be a central hub for blue carbon information, including blue carbon programs, technical assistance, and funding or tax credit information. For this to occur, the MCP must have adequate funds. Maine must continue to match federal funds, and should plan to make up any shortfall if federal funds are not available. Maine’s LMF could explicitly consider blue carbon habitat, and should have consistent long-term funding so the program does not need to compete for bond money almost every legislative session. Similar to New Jersey, Maine might contemplate whether to allocate some of its RGGI funds to LMF or another fund for the dedicated purpose of enhancing blue carbon sequestration. In terms of new funding, Maine might consider three approaches: (1) creating a dedicated fund for blue carbon ecosystem conservation and restoration; (2) looking beyond market based approaches; and (3) expanding the tree growth tax program to cover blue carbon ecosystems.

Maine’s iconic coast and fisheries help define the State and our way of life. The Blue Carbon Network hopes this policy review helps the State identify priority next steps that build upon the existing public private collaborations dedicated to improving and protecting blue carbon.

References

[1] The Maine Blue Carbon Network provides a forum to exchange information about advances in blue carbon science, policy, markets, carbon inventory methods, and other emerging issues.

[2] This paper does not expand upon federal blue carbon law and policy; NOAA’s role has been to fund and provide technical support for restoration of blue carbon ecosystems. EPA protects these habitats through laws such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into wetlands (this is but one example; there are other ways EPA protects these habitats). Congress has not passed significant blue carbon legislation.

[3] Coastal Blue Carbon, National Ocean Service, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon/ (last visited Aug. 6, 2025).

[4] 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 167, §(1)(C). In Maine, sequestration of carbon means “any geological or biological or technological process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide.” 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 167, §(1)(Z); blue carbon stock is “the measurement of the total organic carbon mass stored in salt marsh, eelgrass, and macroalgae areas.” 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 167, §(1)(D).

[5] Through photosynthesis, marsh plants and eelgrass utilize and store carbon dioxide in plant tissues, thus removing carbon dioxide from the surrounding environment and locally reducing impacts of coastal acidification. The Blue Carbon Reservoirs from Maine to Long Island, NY, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, at 5. These habitats support two-thirds of commercial fish, shellfish, and bait species landed in the Gulf of Maine. Michelle Dionne, Ph.D., et. al., Maine’s Salt Marshes: Their Functions, Values, and Restoration, Maine Sea Grant Publications (2003).

[6] Jack McLachlan, High Net Loss of Intertidal Wetland Coverage in a Maine Estuary by Year 2100, Me. J. Conservation and Sustainability, July 11, 2018, https://umaine.edu/spire/2018/07/11/high-net-loss-intertidal-wetland-coverage-maine-estuary-year-2100/.

[7] Maine’s Wildlife Action Plan, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (2015) at 19. In the draft 2025 Wildlife Action Plan, eelgrass will be listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need.

[8] Casco Bay Seagrass Mapping, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., at 12, (Jan. 2023) https://www.cascobayestuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2022-Casco-Bay-Seagrass-Mapping-Report-MEDEP-Normandeau.pdf. By 2022, Casco Bay had lost 68% of the eelgrass present in 1993-94, and “a staggering … 54.5% of beds” present in 2018. Id. 2022 had less eelgrass than any other mapped year. Id. This loss prompted Friends of Casco Bay to submit comments to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) during its Triennial Review of Maine’s Water Quality Standards urging DEP to list Casco Bay as impaired under Category 5-A due to loss of eelgrass habitat. The basis for this is that the extent of loss is much higher, with Casco Bay losing 68% of the Eelgrass present in 1993-94. Maine already has listed the Piscataqua River under Category 5-A: Estuarine and Marine Waters Impaired by Pollutants Other Than Those Listed in 5-B Through 5-D - TMDL Required for loss of Eelgrass and indicators of eutrophication. This listing complements New Hampshire’s listing of the Piscataqua River Estuary and Upper Portsmouth Harbor, which lost over 20% Eelgrass coverage. In Maine, the two AUs in the Piscataqua River lost 98% of its Eelgrass. DEP assigned these AUs a Category 5-A listing for a Marine Life Use Support impairment caused by “nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators.” DEP also listed the adjacent Portsmouth Harbor segment as impaired based on a 49% decrease in Eelgrass between 1996 and 2010. DEP designated the cause as ‘unknown’ until further data could be collected and analyzed.

[9] Marine Vegetation Mapping Program Report (2024), Maine Department of Environmental Protection, at 5, https://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/coastal/2023%20MVMP%20Legislative%20Report_Final.pdf. The Blue Carbon Network and the State’s Botanical Advisory Group is currently considering whether Maine’s eelgrass habitat should receive a conservation status rank under the Maine Natural Areas Program.

[10] See T.S. Suskiewicz et al., Ocean warming undermines the recovery resilience of New England kelp forests following a fishery‐induced trophic cascade, Ecology (June 2024); D.S. Yiu et al., Kelp forest loss and emergence of turf algae reshapes energy flow to predators in a rapidly warming ecosystem, Science Advances (June 2025); S.P. Farrell et al., Turf algae redefine the chemical landscape of temperate reefs, limiting kelp forest recovery. Science (May 2025).

[11] A Report from the Coastal & Marine Working Group of the Maine Climate Council, Maine Climate Council, Coastal and Marine Working Group, at 20 (June 5, 2020).

[12] Maine Won’t Wait, Maine Climate Council (Nov. 2024).

[13] A Report from the Coastal & Marine Working Group of the Maine Climate Council, supra note 11, at 27.

[14] 16 U.S.C. § 1452(1). The CZMA includes three national programs: the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program.

[15] 16 U.S.C. § 1452(2).

[16] Id. Coastal Programs may also include Site Assessment Management Plans (SAMP) that specifically call out and protect unique habitats and species of concern. Maine does not have a SAMP.

[17] A Strategy to Advance Carbon Sequestration on New Jersey's Natural and Working Lands, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Department of Agriculture (Sept. 19, 2024). The strategy includes recommendations for aquatic habitats: (1) Monitoring, assess SAV density and health with ongoing monitoring; (2) Conservation, protect existing SAV from further loss; (3) Restoration, restore X acres per year. Recommendations for wetlands: (1) Complete tidal reconnection projects; (2) Increase cover of salt marsh vegetation; (3) protect tidal wetland migration zones. This document sets targets for Carbon Sequestration Actions which include the recommendations listed above.

[18] Id. at 21

[19] North Carolina Natural and Working Lands Action Plan, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, https://www.ncnhp.org/october-2024-natural-and-working-land-progress-report/open.

[20] Id.

[21] Md. Code Ann., Environment § 5-1402.

[22] Haw. Rev. Stat. § 225P-4.

[23] 38 M.R.S. § 576-A.

[24] 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 167.

[25] Maine’s GHG emissions must be 45% below 1990 levels by January 1, 2030; 80% below 1990 levels by January 1, 2050; and may not exceed zero metric tons (i.e. must be carbon neutral) by January 1, 2045. 38 M.R.S. § 576-A (2019).

[26] See Attachment 2.

[27] Moreover, coastal blue carbon removes carbon from nearshore waters that capture high levels of carbon from the atmosphere and land-based sources. They therefore serve as a buffer against ocean acidification near shellfish habitat and farms.

[28] 38 M.R.S. § 1805.

[29] 38 M.R.S. § 480-A. “The Legislature finds and declares that the State's rivers and streams, great ponds, fragile mountain areas, freshwater wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, coastal wetlands and coastal sand dunes systems are resources of state significance. These resources have great scenic beauty and unique characteristics, unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical and environmental value of present and future benefit to the citizens of the State and that uses are causing the rapid degradation and, in some cases, the destruction of these critical resources, producing significant adverse economic and environmental impacts and threatening the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the State.”

[30] Id.

[31] 38 M.R.S. § 480-C.

[32] 06-096 C.M.R. ch. 310. This chapter applies to the alteration of coastal wetlands and other protected wetlands and waters.

[33] The Maine Coastal Program is administered by the Department of Marine Resources, but will move to the Maine Office of Community Affairs in Fall 2025.

[34] MCP works with partners at the local, state, and regional level so projects benefit from a well-rounded process that is participatory and features the best expertise available. It also convenes state and regional technical provider networks so experts can share the latest information about restoration methods, resources, challenges, and opportunities.

[35] MCP notes that many of Maine's tidal wetlands show impacts by a variety of activities that began centuries ago and include historical agricultural practices, construction of transportation networks and dams, and coastal development. The damage caused by these activities can interfere with the ability of Maine's tidal wetlands to keep pace with sea level rise. Salt marshes appear particularly vulnerable. Left uncorrected, poor resilience to sea level rise will cause many of these wetlands to drown. Maine Coastal Program is working to prevent these losses by focusing on improving habitats damaged by roads and other structures that restrict the tides.

[36] See Maine Tidal Restriction Atlas, Maine Coastal Program, https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/627b1ed27ea24299afdb13d8346f8a6c (last visited Aug. 8, 2025); Maine Stream Habitat Viewer, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, https://webapps2.cgis-solutions.com/mainestreamviewer/ (last visited Aug. 8, 2025).

[37] See CoastWise: Rethinking Tidal Road Crossings, Maine Department of Marine Resources, https://www.maine.gov/dmr/programs/maine-coastal-program/coastal-community-support/the-coastwise-approach (last visited Aug. 8, 2025).

[38] Monitoring Maine’s Salt Marshes, Maine Department of Marine Resources, https://www.maine.gov/dmr/programs/maine-coastal-program/coastal-science-and-research/marsh-monitoring-network (last visited Aug. 8, 2025).

[39] Strategic Plan to Protect California’s Coast and Ocean, California Ocean Protection Council, at 9, https://opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20200226/OPC-2020-2025-Strategic-Plan-FINAL-20200228.pdf.

[40] Final Report, Foundational Elements to Advance the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s Natural and Working Lands Proposal, Institute for Natural Resources, at 1 (Sept. 2023), https://climate.oregon.gov/s/2023-Natural-Working-Lands-Report.pdf .

[41] N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law § 13-0705 (Consol. 2024).

[42] Id. New York also has an Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Act: "The policy of the state of New York shall be to conserve, maintain and restore coastal ecosystems so that they are healthy, productive and resilient and able to deliver the resources people want and need.”

[43] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 26-316. This law is in the Endangered Species Chapter of Title 26 Fisheries and Game. Connecticut also has a Coastal Management Act. "Policies concerning coastal land and other resources within the coastal boundary are: (A) To manage estuarine embayments so as to ensure that coastal uses proceed in a manner that assures sustained biological productivity, the maintenance of healthy marine populations and the maintenance of essential patterns of circulation, drainage and basin configuration; to protect, enhance and allow natural restoration of eelgrass flats except in special limited cases, notably shellfish management, where the benefits accrued through alteration of the flat may outweigh the long-term benefits to marine biota, waterfowl, and commercial and recreational finfisheries and (B) to maintain, enhance, or, where feasible, restore natural patterns of water circulation and fresh and saltwater exchange in the placement or replacement of culverts, tide gates or other drainage or flood control structures." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-92(c)(2)

[44] Conn. Gen Stat. § 22a-35a.

[45] Seagrass Restoration Efforts, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection, https://floridadep.gov/rcp/rcp/content/seagrass-restoration-efforts (last visited Aug. 13, 2025).

[46] 4 Va. Admin. Code § 20-337-30. Of note is that the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science achieved a groundbreaking eelgrass habitat restoration in Burtons Bay, on Virginia's Eastern Shore, thanks to a $2,259,633 grant provided under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Coastal Zone Management Habitat Protection and Restoration Awards. Surpassing projections, the effort sowed 800,000 eelgrass seeds across 80 acres, setting a new state record and far exceeding the initial 15-acre target for the project’s first year.

[47] See Fla. Stat. § 253.04(3)(a). “The duty to conserve and improve state-owned lands and the products thereof includes the preservation and regeneration of seagrass, which is deemed essential to the oceans, gulfs, estuaries, and shorelines of the state.” Id.

[48] Fla. Stat. § 253.04(3)(b). “Any violation under paragraph (a) is a violation of the vessel laws of this state and shall be charged on a uniform boating citation. Any person who refuses to post a bond or accept and sign a uniform boating citation commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.” Id.

[49] Md. Code, Nat. Res. § 4-1006.1.

[50] See Kelly James et al., It's time to broaden what we consider a 'blue carbon ecosystem'. Glob. Chang. Biol. (May 2024). “Mud flats are broad flat areas along the sea coast and in coastal rivers to the head of tidal influence . . . When mud flats are inundated, wind and wave action may resuspend bottom sediments. Coastal mud flats are exposed at extremely low tides and inundated at high tides with the water table at or near the surface of the substrate. The substrate of mud flats contains organic material and particles smaller in size than sand. They are either unvegetated or vegetated only by algal mats.” 40 C.F.R. § 230.42.

[51] Several pilot projects are exploring the use of drones and other technology for this purpose.

[52] For example, Nearview LLC is an organization that deploys light, small unmanned aerial systems (UAS, otherwise known as drones) with advanced remote sensing capabilities and offer surveying, mapping, analysis, and monitoring. They have just released a new mapping initiative, the Coastal Ecosystem Map Application Platform. Coastal Ecosystem Map Application Platform (CEMAP), Nearview, LLC, https://cemap.nearview.net/ (last visited Aug. 8, 2025).

[53] For example, a salt marsh restoration project in Wells was required to get burdensome permits such as a solid waste transfer station permit in order to store sediment for deposition.

[54] About the Land For Maine’s Future Program, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, https://www.maine.gov/dacf/lmf/aboutus.shtml (last visited Aug. 8, 2025).

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] 38 M.R.S. § 480-Z.

[58] Wetland Restoration Projects Receive $1.2 Million in Funding from MNRCP, Maine Department of Environmental Protection https://www.maine.gov/dep/news/news.html?id=13142147 (last visited Aug. 8, 2025) (where a project in Bowdoinham will improve tidal flow into upstream wetlands by upgrading tidal restrictions; a project in Biddeford will restore saltmarshes from the impacts of agriculture and enhance wildlife habitat).

[59] Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act is the federal vehicle for these grants.

[60] Maine Coastal Program Draft Strategic Outlook 2026-2030, Maine Coastal Program (April 22, 2025). For example, Strategy 2 for Wetlands indicates that Section 309 funding may be insufficient to fully find the work plan. Id. at 106.

[61] Webhannet Salt Marsh located in Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge.

[62] Wash. Rev. Code § 70A.65.250 (2024).

[63] Wash. Rev. Code § 70A.65.270 (2024). Funding under the clean water investment subsection must be used to: “Restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats and prepare for sea level rise including, but not limited to…Increase carbon storage in the ocean or aquatic and coastal ecosystems; Reduce flood risk and restore natural floodplain ecological function; Either preserve or increase, or both, carbon sequestration and storage benefits in forests, forested wetlands, agricultural soils, tidally influenced agricultural or grazing lands, or freshwater, saltwater, or brackish aquatic lands; or Either preserve or establish, or both, carbon sequestration by protecting or planting trees in marine shorelines and freshwater riparian areas sufficient to promote climate resilience, protect cold water fisheries, and achieve water quality standards.” Id. at § 70A.65.270(2)(a)(i)-(viii).

[64] The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions. 

[65] RGGU Strategic Funding Plan Years 2023-2025, New Jersey Economic Development Authority, at 12, https://www.nj.gov/rggi/index.html.

[66] Conservation finance is a broad term that encompasses the many tools and strategies for securing the funds needed to implement and sustain a given conservation objective.

[67] La. Const. art. 7, section 10.2.

[68] La. Rev. Stat. § 49:214.5.4 (2023). Though they have this funding scheme, the State is currently investigating carbon accreditation options for restoration and risk reduction projects.

[69] Maine law currently establishes a RGGI Trust Fund. 35-A M.R.S. § 10109. Trust funds must be allocated for measures, investments, loans, technical assistance and arrangements that reduce electricity consumption, increase energy efficiency or reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower energy costs at commercial or industrial facilities and for investment in measures that lower residential heating energy demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Id. at § 4-A. In 2020, Maine invested over $7.4 million in RGGI proceeds with roughly 85% of the funds going towards energy efficiency and none going towards conservation projects. The Investment of RGGI Proceeds in 2020, The Regional Greenhouse Initiative (2022), https://www.rggi.org/sites/default/files/Uploads/Proceeds/RGGI_Proceeds_Report_2020.pdf at 14. As of 2024, New Jersey has invested $17 million in auction proceeds to blue carbon sequestration projects.

[70] Maine could also consider expanding its Open Space Current Use Program to include salt marshes. That program reduces property taxes for land owners that preserve open space. 36 M.R.S. § 1106-A. Maine Won’t Wait 2024, supra, note 12, suggested to include incentives for climate friendly practices within this program. Another example is the WoodWise program. This program offers cost-share assistance for forest management planning. WoodsWise: Woods Wise Incentives to Stewardship Enhancement, Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry, https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mfs/policy_management/wwi.html (last visited Aug. 8, 2025).