Engineers from across Maine expressed concern Thursday about proposed new rules that are meant to encourage natural methods for restoring and protecting the state’s shorelines, but that would restrict the use of harder protections such as seawalls and layers of stone known as riprap.
During a hearing before the state Board of Environmental Protection, some of the opponents said that they generally support nature-based solutions to protect shorelines — such as vegetation and biodegradable materials like logs — but they argued that the proposed rules would be too restrictive for coastal property owners who have long relied on the stronger protection offered by riprap.
While the proposed rules are meant to encourage more environmentally friendly means of protecting Maine’s coast against worsening storms and rising sea levels, the opposition to them highlighted how reluctant coastal landowners can be to move away from traditional methods of preserving waterfront land.
The proposed rule changes would apply to property owners who seek a permit by rule, which is an expedited permitting process for a project. The use of riprap would be restricted to a total of 100 feet of shoreline on such projects — although more could be allowed if the buildings protected by the riprap are within 100 feet of the upland edge of an eroding bank.
Some of the changes that have been proposed are in response to legislation passed earlier this year after multiple devastating storms.
State officials spoke in favor of the rule change during the hearing on Thursday.
Peter Slovinsky, a marine geologist with the Maine Geological Survey, said that using nature-based solutions, like planting trees and allowing drainage, can better protect the bluffs that make up 48 percent of Maine’s coast.
If bluffs experience significant erosion, they can succumb to landslides. But Slovinsky said using riprap to stabilize them can lead to more erosion of neighboring properties, scouring of the intertidal zones and indirect loss of protected intertidal habitats.
However, several engineers spoke out against the rule changes, claiming the new rules are too restrictive. If engineers are required to use natural solutions when riprap would work better, they would be liable if the stabilization fails, they argued.
Craig Coolidge, the vice president and principal engineer at Summit Geoengineering Services, said at the meeting that there is a “green-to-gray continuum” of how much nature and stone to use in a stabilization project. He said when shorelines are washed away quickly, engineers must sometimes use riprap to stabilize them.
“We’re not here to armor everything,” Coolidge said.
William Ferdinand, an attorney who represents clients in the Legislature and practices energy, environmental and land use law, said that if the risk of the stabilization failing is too high, engineers will not use the expedited permit by rule process, thereby making the rule changes useless.
The Board of Environmental Protection did not vote on the rule change Thursday and is accepting feedback on it until Jan. 13.
