PORTLAND – The state Board of Environmental Protection denied a Bar Harbor woman’s pier permit without having evidence in the record to support the decision, the Maine Supreme Court said Wednesday in remanding the case back to regulators.

In a nine-page ruling, Chief Justice Leigh Saufley said the BEP merely speculated on the potential impact of a new 90-foot pier on Long Cove in Bar Harbor when denying the application of resident Anne Hannum in May 2001.

“A finding of cumulative impact will often require reasonable extrapolation from present facts, but such a finding must have as its source actual facts from which to anticipate future impact,” Saufley wrote for the court. “No such source exists in this record.”

Neither Hannum nor her attorney, Edmond Bearor of Bangor, could be reached for comment on the decision.

The Maine DEP had recommended approval of the project near Indian Point, as did the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Service and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Margaret McCloskey, assistant attorney general who represents the BEP and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, reserved comment on the decision.

“We’re still digesting it,” she said Wednesday.

The state’s case was argued before the court by Attorney General Steven Rowe.

McCloskey was not sure how soon the BEP would take up the Hannum case again.

The court ruled that BEP’s decision was based on two main unsubstantiated conclusions:

. That other piers “would likely follow” if Hannum built her pier, and that there would be an adverse impact on the environment and wildlife.

. That the cumulative boat traffic “prospectively generated” by Hannum’s pier and others that would be built could, at some future time, have an adverse impact on the marine environment.

“The decision … must be vacated and remanded to the [BEP] for a decision based on the evidence without reliance on speculation about future cumulative impacts of events that have not yet occurred and may never occur,” Saufley wrote.

James Nixon, attorney for Friends of Acadia, an intervenor in the case, said Wednesday he was disappointed by the decision and thought both the BEP and the Superior Court ruling were well-grounded in evidence.

Nixon also had not had time to fully examine the ruling, but said he expects Friends of Acadia to remain involved in the case.