AUGUSTA — The Board of Environmental Protection on Thursday scrutinized a proposal designed to loosen permitting requirements for people who want to build near so-called moderate-value wetlands.

The proposal, part of a legislative directive last session to expedite permitting, had set environmental groups on high alert after the Department of Environmental Protection submitted a plan last month that would have allowed landowners to obtain permits closer to wetland buffer zones without consulting state biologists.

The DEP proposal would have eliminated the latter provision and reduced the buffer for some qualifying projects.

Biologists with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife currently evaluate the potential impacts of development on a variety of birds that use the wetlands for food and nesting.

Groups like the Natural Resources Council of Maine worry that the proposal is so broadly worded that large-scale development could avoid extensive review. They also worried that pressure from the LePage administration would prevent IF&W biologists from fully expressing to the BEP their concerns about the proposal’s impact on more than 20 bird species in the moderate-value zone, including species that are experiencing population decline or that support hunting activity.

Emails between IF&W’s former Wildlife Division Director Mark Stadler and DEP Bureau of Land and Water Quality Director Mike Mullen show that Stadler, then the department’s chief biologist, found the proposal “deeply discouraging.”

Stadler retired from IF&W in September after overseeing the wildlife division for 13 years. However, he attended Thursday’s hearing, during which two IF&W biologists who once worked for him appeared under oath before the the BEP.

Both biologists, Steve Walker and Brad Allen, said the department supported the DEP proposal. However, questioned about its consequences, Walker and Allen initially tried to defer to reams of scientific studies outlining the effects of reduced wooded vegetative buffers.

Allen acknowledged that reducing the buffers would lead to “some losses” of bird species from the affected areas.

When pressed by board members to elaborate, Walker said he “had concerns,” but there were “other forces at work here.”

Walker said it was up to the board to weigh the risks against the policy they were asked to implement.

“So you’re basically just giving us the risks?” board member Richard Gould said.

“That’s what we feel comfortable with right now,” Walker said.

IF&W Commissioner Chandler Woodcock attended most of the meeting. He left after Walker and Allen gave their testimony.

Stadler said after the hearing that he was encouraged that the board had decided to consider potentially adding a requirement that land owners consult an IF&W biologist before receiving a fast-tracked permit.

“When we’re talking about potentially diminishing the public resource, isn’t it most appropriate to have a consultation with the agency that protects it so that you can try to avoid and attempt to minimize the impact?” he said. “I think that’s the absolute best way to do development.”

Mullen, with the DEP, said the department had received 44 permit requests in the moderate-value zone since 2006. He said more than a half-dozen were not approved.

The issue had been a source of frustration for some landowners during the past legislative session. Current law requires development in moderate or high value habitat to require an individual permit from the DEP. The process can be lengthy because other state agencies and outside groups can weigh in.

The current proposal allows certain projects to advance through an expedited “permit by rule” system.

The proposal is supported by the governor and property owners, including the Forest Products Association, which represents major landowners in the Unorganized Territory.

While the proposal was framed last session as giving property owners more latitude to build single-family homes, environmental groups fear its provisions will allow larger-scale development, such as residential subdivisions and commercial projects.

Nick Bennett of the Natural Resources Council of Maine said his organization has few problems with allowing the expedited process for smaller developments. But the proposed language, he said, was so broad that larger developments could qualify for permits without a thorough assessment by IF&W biologists.

On Thursday the board appeared ready to consider including IF&W consultation. Additionally, several members wanted to see proposals that included limiting certain developments from qualifying for the expedited permit.

Stadler said he was encouraged that the board appeared to be heading in that direction.

Bennett, however, was concerned that the testimony given by IF&W biologists didn’t specifically outline the risks of the proposal.

“I am struck by the inconsistency between what IF&W said today with their guidelines and with everything they’ve said on this issue for the past 20 years,” he said.

Bennett also questioned why the board was under the gun to review the proposal now when it was given to them by the Legislature in June.

The DEP proposal was introduced in November.

“They waited until November to post it so there couldn’t be a hearing until December,” he said. “Now they’re trying to ram this down the board’s throat.”

He added, “That’s either incompetence or it’s deliberate to prevent a complicated issue from getting the attention it deserves.”

The BEP will deliberate the proposal during its Jan. 5 meeting. A second meeting will be held later that month before the proposal is kicked back to the Legislature for final approval.

[email protected]