Department of the Environment - Waivers for Living Shorelines and Nonstructural Shoreline Stabilization Measures - Regulations and Scoring System
HB 613 revises Maryland’s shoreline erosion-control rules for Calvert County and St. Mary’s County, with a focus on living shorelines and nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures. The bill requires that, in those counties, shoreline protection projects generally use living shorelines or other nonstructural methods unless the property owner can show those approaches are not feasible. It also defines key terms such as living shoreline, nonstructural shoreline stabilization measure, and high- and medium-energy environments, and it preserves limited exceptions where structural measures may still be appropriate.
The bill also changes the waiver process administered by the Department of the Environment. The Department must adopt regulations that include a waiver process, visit a proposed project site within 45 days upon request, notify the local soil conservation district, and allow that district to recommend acceptance or modifications. In addition, the Department must develop a public scoring system, in consultation with a licensed marine contractor, to evaluate waiver requests and identify the factors, weights, and minimum score used to determine whether a living shoreline is not feasible. The bill repeals the prior standalone nonstructural shoreline stabilization provision in the Natural Resources Article and replaces it with a cross-reference to the revised Environment Article requirements.
The bill amends Environment Article § 16-201 and repeals the prior Natural Resources Article § 8-1808.11, consolidating shoreline stabilization standards under the Environment Article. It creates county-specific rules for Calvert County and St. Mary’s County, limits when structural shoreline stabilization may be used, and gives soil conservation districts a larger role in review, certification, and regulation of shoreline projects. The Department of the Environment must also publish a waiver scoring system and coordinate with stakeholders on future changes, including issues in medium- and high-energy environments, mitigation, and timing restrictions.
The available record shows the bill was enacted and approved by the Governor, with no recorded committee transcripts or vote breakdowns indicating formal opposition in the provided materials. The structure of the bill suggests a generally supportive policy direction toward living shorelines, transparency in waiver decisions, and more predictable permitting standards. Its enactment indicates sufficient legislative support for the changes.
The main points of contention appear to be the balance between environmental shoreline protection and property owners’ ability to use structural erosion-control measures where living shorelines may be difficult or impractical. The bill addresses this by creating a waiver process, requiring site visits, and adding a scoring system, which suggests concern that waiver decisions had been too opaque or inconsistent. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s county-specific treatment of Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties and the role of soil conservation districts versus the Department of the Environment in approving projects, certifying compliance, and setting seasonal or mitigation requirements.