Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Stabilization Bioengineering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to allow soil bioengineering and other non‑structural shoreline techniques; supporters seek amendments
Summary
Senate Bill 504 would direct rulemaking to allow soil bioengineering systems for shoreline stabilization, a change supporters say could reduce riprap and seawalls; environmental groups support the intent but urged language changes, tribal inclusion and clearer guidance for ocean shore applications.
Senate Bill 504 would direct the Land Conservation and Development Commission to adopt rules allowing soil bioengineering systems for shoreline stabilization along estuaries, coastal shorelands and the ocean shore, and would require the Department of State Lands and State Parks to participate in rulemaking and adopt conforming rules by Jan. 1, 2029, if enacted.
Sponsor Senator David Brock Smith said the measure is designed to expand the toolbox for coastal erosion and storm surge response and to “use natural materials whenever we’re protecting those shorelines.” Cam Perry, a restoration practitioner who has worked on coastal projects, told the committee that the bill is “the anti‑riprap bill” and urged the committee to authorize natural, engineered log jams and vegetated “green armor” as alternatives to hard armoring. "When we do this sort of restoration in coastal areas and in estuaries, our oversight agencies expect certain language, and part of that is engineering," Perry said, adding that ecological engineering is intensely engineered but designed to look natural.
Charlie Plybon, Oregon policy manager for Surfrider Foundation, said the organization supports better guidance for nonstructural alternatives and called the bill “the anti‑riprap bill” as well. Plybon urged clarifying language for the ocean shore and recommended amendments to improve definitions and implementation guidance. He cited Goal 18 (which restricts armoring) and Goal 17 (preference for nonstructural measures) as existing land‑use frameworks that should guide rulemaking.
Annie Merrill of Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition said her group supports the bill’s intent but remains neutral on the present language and urged removal of the phrase "soil bioengineering systems" and the addition of tribal representatives and restoration practitioners to the advisory committee to ensure equity and effective implementation.
Department of State Lands staff provided a staff summary of the bill and the timetable for agency rulemaking obligations. Sponsor Smith and Mr. Perry indicated a willingness to work with coastal advocates and agencies on amendments to refine planting densities, materials lists and compliance language.
The committee heard no final vote on SB 504; committee members indicated openness to a follow‑up conversation and to reviewing proposed technical amendments.
Ending: Support for nonstructural shoreline stabilization is broad, but several coastal conservation groups and restoration practitioners urged targeted amendments and stronger tribal and practitioner participation in rulemaking to avoid unintended consequences on beaches and estuaries.
