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 put new limits on the harder protection offered by layers of stone known as riprap.
During a hearing before the state Board of Environmental Protection, state officials and representatives from some environmental groups spoke in favor of the rule changes, arguing that they would help to prevent unintended effects that riprap can have on the surrounding environment and encourage the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.
While the opponents said that they generally support nature-based solutions to protecting shorelines — such as vegetation and biodegradable materials like logs — they argued that the proposed rules would be too restrictive for waterfront property owners who have long relied on the stronger protection offered by riprap.
The opposition to the proposed rules highlighted how reluctant waterfront landowners can be to move away from traditional methods of preserving shorefront land.
The proposed rule changes would apply to property owners who seek a permit by rule, which is an expedited permitting process available for shoreline restoration projects on certain freshwater bodies — though it’s not available for projects on the coast or on rivers.
Among other changes, new limits would be placed on how much riprap can be used in permit by rule restoration projects, and it would become easier to use nature-based approaches in those projects.
Some of the changes that have been proposed are in response to legislation passed earlier this year after multiple devastating storms.
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.
Luke Frankel, a staff scientist and director for woods, waters, and wildlife at the Natural Resources Council of Maine, also pointed to the damage that riprap can cause.
“I have witnessed these impacts firsthand during surveys that I’ve conducted previously in my career where excessive riprap usage has degraded habitat in the streams and along the coasts of the greater Portland area,” Frankel said. “The rise of nature-based shoreline stabilization techniques in recent years has provided an alternative to these traditional hardened structures that minimize negative impacts while still providing the same erosion control benefits.”
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.
Correction: A previous version of this story misstated what types of shoreline restoration would be affected by the changes in permit by rule. They would only apply to projects on some freshwater bodies. It also misstated how the use of riprap could be affected on some projects.
