coastal dredging: a multi-state synthesis of policy

Chelsea Brown and Mike Piehler

UNC Institute of Marine Science | 3431 Arendell St, Morehead City, NC

Coastal Dredging: A Multi-State Synthesis of Policy, Management, and Implementation

Draft Report to the North Carolina Marine and Estuarine Foundation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 2 Methods 4 Results 5 Discussion 10 Appendix A - Policy Category Descriptions 13 Appendix B - Dredging Database 15 Appendix C – Questionnaire 25

INTRODUCTION The US Atlantic coast is an economically and environmentally valuable region that has been subject to challenges from sedimentation and the resulting loss of water depth. More than half of Americans live in coastal counties with shorelines experiencing rates of relative sea level rise of 0.2-1.0 cm y-1 (Turner 1991; Miller et al. 2001; Culliton 1998; Morris et al. 2002; Riggs 2002). The position and productivity of ecologically and economically valuable habitats in these regions are controlled by water level and sediment supply (McKee and Patrick 1988; Odum et al. 1995; Roman et al. 1990; Buzzelli 1998; Levin et al 2001). Mean sea level provides a metric to divide sub- from inter-tidal habitats as emergent wetlands survive within a narrow elevation range by maintaining their vertical position (Morris et al. 2002). Low lying areas that do not accumulate sediment and grow vertically are susceptible to gradual flooding through relative sea level rise or sudden erosion during high wind or storm surge. Wetlands, marshes, and associated submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) facilitate wave dissipation and sediment deposition which can combat erosion and provides habitats for wildlife, in and out of the water (Duarte et al., 2019; Nardin, Lera & Nienhuis, 2020, Moeller et al., 1996, Jackson, et al., 2001). Human modifications along coastlines, particularly inlet, channel and port dredging have affected coastal zones by altering sediment supplies and transport patterns. Dredging, the excavation of bottom material, is required in many areas along the coast to ensure continued waterway navigability. Despite this need, dredging and disposal operations can have detrimental environmental impacts through damage to benthic habitats (Jones, 1986; Erftemeijer et al., 2006), increases in turbidity which can create sediment plumes that smother wildlife (Wilber & Clarke, 2010, Pineda et al., 2017, Ray et al., 2005), impacts to water quality (Priest, 1981) and direct fish mortality (Wenger et al., 2017). Although dredging is a necessary activity, the potential for negative environmental outcomes has been of concern to state and federal resource managers. This concern has resulted in policy enactments and the creation of agencies and commissions to minimize and mitigate the negative effects of dredging. In recent years, realities of changing climate and rising water levels have begun to manifest themselves along U.S. shores broadening initiatives to sustain coastal communities and environments. North Carolina in particular has experienced two major hurricanes, Florence and Michael, just in the last two years that caused substantial damage. Beneficial reuse of dredged materials is one such innovation to restore, reclaim, and regrade coastal lands (Welsh et al., 2016). Beneficial reuse involves identifying areas that are in need of sediment additions, such as eroding beaches and using the dredged material from approved projects to nourish the sediment-starved shores. Historically, the dredged might otherwise have been disposed of at an upland disposal facility or deposited in the open ocean, but when used as a resource in coastal systems, the dredged material can help resist coastal erosion and further resilience goals while still maintaining waterways. There are numerous applications for beneficial reuse although it is in the early stages of implementation. Notably, the use of dredged material as a replacement for natural sediment accretion has successfully augmented beaches, creating more resilient coastlines, and increasing habitat sustainability (Welsh et al., 2016). Sediment reuse has logistical and economic costs and understanding how states can most effectively incorporate pro-beneficial reuse policy is increasingly urgent, as opportunities to protect invaluable coastal environments become more complicated and urgent due to continued degradation.

Dredging is defined by NOAA as “the removal of sediments and debris from the bottom of lakes, rivers, harbors, and other water bodies…” necessary “because sedimentation—the natural process of sand and silt washing downstream—gradually fills channels and harbors.” There are two types of dredging: 1) maintenance dredging is the removal of sediment accumulated in navigation channels and harbors to sustain water depth and channel width; and 2) construction dredging is the removal of soil to create new navigation channels or open water. The Clean Water Act of 1972, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), and various other federal acts regulate dredging activities at the federal level and states must comply, but many policy decisions are left to states. There is ample research that focuses on federal authority and management, but few focus on state policies guiding dredging and beneficial reuse. State legislation and permitting are the main tools for states to systematically reduce the potential and severity of dredging impacts through agency-reviewed permitting, designating protected resource areas, and restricting certain water uses. Because the effects of dredging are often state- and species-specific, policy must be accommodating of these distinctions in order to adequately protect the state’s resources. Although each state faces unique challenges which are reflected in their policy approaches, the shared goal of balancing economic and environmental interest, as well as the changing climate lend value and opportunity to cross-evaluating the approaches of other states. This analysis examines state dredging laws in five eastern U.S. coastal states with a focus on assessing North Carolina’s dredging laws related to beneficial reuse and environmental protections. The comparisons assess 4 dredging sub-topics: 1) state-specific permits, 2) wetlands/environmental considerations, 3) dredged sediment disposal, and 4) best practices. Each sub-topic was further broken down into 20 subcategories and used to identify specific variances in state policies. All of the policy data were collected in 2020 using online state policy resources and recorded in a policy matrix. In order to learn more about how government bodies involved with permitting and dredging projects implement their state’s policies, we conducted interviews with managers and agency officials. Interviews focused on questions to understand how the permitting process is implemented, their perceived program strengths, and how the process could be improved to better protect the states’ multiple interests. By developing a categorical policy matrix and gathering targeted data from our questionnaire for coastal directors and managers, we were able to compare policies across a range of coastal states and obtain an in-depth understanding of what distinctions exist in dredging policies and implementation. Based on this comprehensive assessment of dredging policies between representative states, we sought opportunities to advance dredging policy and implementation in North Carolina. Our goals were to:

1. Compare and contrast comprehensive assessments of coastal dredging policies between selected representative states

2. Examine coastal dredging policy implementation in the focal states

3. Identify potential opportunities for North Carolina to advance its coastal dredging management

METHODS We sampled five US Atlantic coastal states: 1) North Carolina, 2) South Carolina, 3) Maine, 4) New Jersey and 5) Virginia. We aimed to determine distinctions in state authority and the corresponding dredging policy and did not consider federal policies. These states are representative of dredging policy, north and south, in the eastern U.S. Four focus areas were determined and 20 subcategories were defined to categorically address state-specific dredging legislation that was not affiliated with federal regulation (Appendix A). Each of the subcategories was designed to encompass the entirety of the dredging process, from pre-permitting to post-project completion. The state code law and administration codes were analyzed and compiled first and subsequent documentation, such as state water quality certifications, that was available online that related to dredging policy were evaluated. We included all laws targeting dredging, beneficial reuse, and affiliated environmental protections in coastal areas that are partially, tidally or entirely covered with water. A policy was recorded as a “Y” in the policy matrix if it was found to fall into one of the 20 dredging subcategories. Policy excerpts were also documented for further evaluation (Appendix B). This assessment aims to be comprehensive in identifying statutory provisions for coastal dredging and environmental protection, but it does not identify all laws in each state. Local authorities were not examined and where multiple state policies existed, a single encompassing example was selected to avoid unnecessary repetition. Within this framework, we evaluated policies that serve to protect ecosystems and the state’s resources by standardizing and restricting coastal dredging. The policy matrix provided a broad understanding of which policies states had enacted, but it did not fully convey the differences between states’ approaches. To gain a more detailed understanding of the variances across states’ policies, the second phase of the study involved rigorous examination of a subset of 12 of the policy subcategories. These 12 subcategories were selected for their alignment with our goals and research questions and based on policy matrix observations across the five states (i.e. categories in which states did not have policy data). The specific differences in approaches were summarized for each state across the 12 focal categories to address variations in key policy areas. The third phase of the study was aimed at understanding the applications and implications of these policies on dredging management and activities in the states. A nine-question interview template was formulated and tailored to reflect the state’s unique policy approaches (Appendix C). These questions were submitted to leaders of the appropriate state agencies. Responses were anonymized and cross-compared by a single research member to ensure consistency.

RESULTS Phase 1: Policy Matrix Table 1. Policy Matrix for each state where ‘Y’ represents the existence of policy/policies for that category and ‘N’ indicates that no policy exists. States and policy categories are color coded.

NC SC ME NJ VA

State-Specific Permits

Dredge Permit x x x x x Dredge Disposal Permit x x x x x

Wetlands &

Environmental Considerations

Water Type Restrictions x x x x x Temporal Restrictions x x x x x SAV Considerations x x x x x Hydrological Considerations x x x x x Fish/Wildlife Considerations x x x x x Envi Considerations x x x x x Economic Considerations x x x x x Scenic/Aesthetic Value x x x x x Buffer Area Protections x x x x x "Special Area" Designations x x x x x

Dredged Sediment Disposal

Beneficial Reuse x x x x x Project Pre-Assessment x x x x x Post-Monitoring x x x x x Dredge Material Standards x x x x x

Best Practices

BMPs x x x x x Cost/Benefit or Alternatives Analysis

x x x x x

Specific Dredge Techniques/Minimization

x x x x x

Mitigation/Compensation x x x x x There is widespread consistency in the policy matrix across the five states, with only ten out of 100 matrix cells lacking legislation. Virginia did not have existing policy in four of the dredging subcategories, followed by Maine’s three empty cells and then two and one empty cells for North and South Carolina, respectively. Lack of policy was concentrated in the Wetlands &

Environmental Considerations subtopic (6 empty cells), Dredged Sediment Disposal (2 empty cells) and Best Practices (2 empty cells). Economic Considerations, Buffer Area Protections and BMPs subcategories were most frequently empty. Phase 2: Policy Specific 1) Temporal Restrictions-

Temporal restrictions varied across the five states with only two, NC and VA, stating specific environmental windows (NC: May to November 15 for sea turtles; VA: mid-March to June for spawning, October to November for oysters and clams). Although SC does not explicitly outline a dredging window, the state does specifically consider the migration, nesting, wintering, spawning and brood-rearing of wildlife when approving a dredging project. All five states allow for the imposition of temporal restrictions in consideration of wildlife and their life cycles.

2) SAV Considerations

All five states consider SAV during permitting decisions, but dredging in SAV is explicitly prohibited in NC and NJ unless it cannot be avoided. ME and SC also avoid SAV areas when permitting development if possible. If not, ME requires that machinery operate atop mats to protect vegetation, while NJ requires mitigation for damages.

3) Hydrological Considerations

Hydrological factors are considered in NJ development permitting, which requires assessments on bathymetry, hydrology and substrate and restricts projects that may be detrimental to natural hydrology. VA considers water quality when permitting and the excavated material must not encroach into natural drainage ways. Similarly, dredging activities in ME cannot “unreasonably” interfere with water or sediment flows, while in NC projects explicitly cannot impair circulation, siltation or change hydrology. NC also limits dredging projects to the minimum dimensions to avoid hydrological impacts. Likewise, SC considers the extent of impact of a project on natural flows and requires minimization of circulation impacts.

4) Fish/Wildlife Considerations

Each state considers impacts to fish and wildlife that are the result of dredging projects and operations. VA requires an analysis of resources in the area that is to be dredged as well as an impact assessment on the crab population. SC considers effects on rare and endangered species and their habitats and, similarly, NC designates areas of environmental concern to protect wildlife habitats. ME requires that dredging applicants minimize their impacts, but may deny a permit even when there is no alternative, if there is unreasonable impacts to wildlife. NJ conditionally accepts new and maintenance dredging in shellfish areas if there are minimal to no adverse effects on shellfish, but it is prohibited in prime fishing areas, mitigation measures must be implemented, and dredging activities are prohibited if resulting post-project water quality interferes with finfish migration.

5) Economic Considerations Although NC and ME do not consider economics in the permitting process, NJ, SC and VA do incorporate economics into their permit considerations. Both VA and NJ analyze resources of commercial and recreational importance. VA uniquely considers whether the return on a project is worth the cost of investigation and sediment tests. SC considers economics as well, explicitly citing tourism with mention of special commercially, recreationally and ecologically valuable resources. SC stands out in their consideration of the economic losses if a project were to fail.

6) Buffer Area Protections

There are no buffer area protections in SC or VA, and NJ imposes buffer area requirements on emergency dredging projects. In contrast, NC has a buffer requirement of 30ft landward of the normal/normal high water line and ME requires a 75-100ft buffer around wetlands. ME also has the authority to impose a buffer.

7) Beneficial Reuse

All five states have policy related to beneficial reuse of dredged material. SC promotes planned nourishment and uses material below the mean high/high water line for beach fill or recreation areas. NC goes a step further and does not consider dredge spoil a waste material. Instead, NC utilizes dredged material as the preferred response to erosion and dredged material must be deposited on beaches if it is suitable. Similarly, NJ considers dredged material a resource and encourages beneficial reuse to make and enhance coastal areas. While VA gives public beaches priority regarding beneficial reuse of material, upland sources are preferred for fill, and VA only approves reuse projects on submerged lands for stabilization or wetland enhancement. ME emphasizes stabilization of sediments in their policy surrounding beneficial reuse, but ME also mandates that these projects be 75ft from protected resources.

8) Project Pre-Assessment

Four of the five states require an assessment prior to the start of the project. Although North Carolina was not found to have project pre-assessment policy that fell into our subcategory, there are other NC policies that demonstrate that the state considers the impacts of a project prior to beginning. SC evaluates the negative impacts of the project in Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC) on a case-by-case basis and applicants must demonstrate of minimized environmental impacts if approved. ME, NJ and VA had more extensive project pre-assessment policy. ME dredged material disposal sites must be deemed geologically suitable and applicants must provide detailed information regarding the transport of material and impacts of the transport prior to beginning; this requirement may be waived if the state already possesses the necessary information. ME also requires a description of significant wildlife habitat that will be altered and probable impacts of activity on resources. Developments in NJ must demonstrate no direct/secondary effects on all/each of the endangered/threatened wildlife or plants in and/or abutting the area through the NJ impact assessments which must be grounded in current science. The state of NJ also requires that a hydrographic survey performed by a certified party. NJ applicants must also inventory aquatic resources and provide a work-cited narrative that describes how the development will alter NJ habitats.

Prospective dredging projects in VA must describe how they will minimize detrimental offsite effects during and after project. VA also considers the public benefit of the project and project designs must demonstrate the least impact on natural resources and habitats while also balancing cost effectiveness of environmentally-friendly options. Similar to NJ, VA also requires a narrative description of impacts on surface waters/wetlands but does not require cited literature.

9) Post-Monitoring

Post-monitoring policies vary across the five states, but ME is the only state that lacks policy in this subcategory. SC requires that there be a monitoring program but only to measure beach profiles for the life of the project. Similarly, NJ may require monitoring for beach profiling, but may require monitoring at all project stages and the monitoring plan must be included in the permit application for filling in wet borrow pits. NC may require monitoring if the project occurs during a period of high biological productivity and monitoring is mandated if the dredge material meets state-defined criteria for discharges. VA may impose a monitoring requirement, but most VA projects at least require a bathymetric survey within 30 days of project completion.

10) Dredged Material Standards

All five states have policy that explicitly outlined their dredged material reuse requirements, which all included sediment characterization of the dredged material, the beach to-be-nourished, or both. The state of NC requires characterization of both beach sediments and the dredged material. NC policy defines where dredged material can be placed, specifically on non-wetland areas and never on regularly flooded wetlands. In contrast to NC, SC outlines where the dredged material can come from: offshore deposits or areas of active accretion. SC nourishments must demonstrate no negative effects downshore and applicants must study littoral transport, the beach characteristics, features, and functions, and the physical and chemical aspects of the fill material prior to the project. SC is unique both because the state does not explicitly prohibit beneficial reuse in any area and because SC considers the future maintenance following a beneficial reuse project. ME, however, does not allow disposal of dredged material in any protected natural resource. Reuse projects in ME are not even considered unless the material has been tested. Unlike the other states, ME has strict beach regrading guidelines and work must be completed using mats or platforms to stockpile dredge material. NJ requires sediment testing similar to that of other states, but, unlike any other state, NJ also outlines five scenarios where testing is not required. Like NC, NJ prohibits reuse in some areas, specifically in areas where water depth is below 6ft, and discourages reuse in open bays and semi-enclosed backbays. NJ prohibits reuse across a broader range of areas if the dredged material exceeds a given toxicity level. VA requires testing of both dredged material and native beach sediment prior to applying for a reuse project. Projects that demonstrate the least environmental impact will be approved, but detailed evaluations are only required for projects involving the excavation of more than 7.5K cy of material. The VA Secretary of Natural Resources determines the suitability of the dredged material, but considers contaminated materials solid waste.

11) Cost/Benefit or Alternatives Analysis All five states consider project alternatives when permitting. Impact reports for VA permits require a description of alternative practices, but the state also recognizes the need for economic development. NJ and SC both seek to balance economic and environmental feasibility of projects as well, but permit projects if there is no alternative. ME policy does not outline economic and environmental prioritization, but considers deems unreasonable if there is a feasible alternative that exists.

12) Mitigation/Compensation

All five states have the authority to require mitigation for damages related to dredging and disposal activities. NC requires mitigation if there are losses greater than 150 linear feet of streams and one acre or more of wetlands. VA enforces their mitigation requirement using ratios, with at least a 1:1 ratio, for any lost or impacted resources, but a 1.33:1 ratio or greater for loss of clams and a ratio for SAV losses that depends on the species, density, and location of the impacted SAV. In addition, VA also requires that the compensation be as close to the original as possible and must be professionally done. SC also requires mitigation through planting and dune construction, but may consider offsite options and uniquely requires mitigation for disposal impacts as well. Mitigation in NJ is required for any development that alters water quality or impacts fish at any life history stage and a civil action may be instituted for compensatory damages.

Phase 3: Policy Perspectives Because of the small number of interviews and the need to ensure anonymity, results are reported in a general manner in accordance with our nondisclosure agreement with interviewees. Responses were varied among the five states and only two of the five states were able to complete the entire questionnaire. Key common findings included:

1. There was a consistent theme of project-specific judgement playing a significant role in decision making

2. Despite clear policies for mitigation and/or compensation after dredging, there were mixed results regarding the success of these policies

3. Policies such as post-monitoring and mitigation/compensation are not consistently effective in achieving the natural resource goals

4. Respondents consistently referred to technical challenges around mitigation – a repeated anecdote was difficulties associated with SAV restoration

5. Respondents from states with extremely similar policy frameworks expressed contrasting perspectives on the robustness of their dredging management efficacy

DISCUSSION Increasing coastal populations and rising water levels on both short (storms) and long (sea level rise) timescales make the demand for coastal dredging likely to increase. Innovation in the management and execution of dredging is necessary to sustain valuable coastal systems. North Carolina’s dredging policies are very similar to the other states in this study. There was widespread consistency across the policy matrix, but the distinctions occurred in the application of policy. Many of the policies are necessarily context-dependent and require judgements on a case-by-case basis. The interviews demonstrated that the presence of policy is does not always determine dredging management, rather policy implementation is the primary variable. Focusing on effective application of policy that is centered in preservation, rather than increased policy enaction, could bring North Carolina’s coastal management practices to the forefront of strategic beneficial reuse of dredged material. Despite the significant similarities in policy, there are areas in which North Carolina could look to other states to refine its policy and approaches. In particular, states with more intensive project pre-assessment and post-monitoring, like Maine and New Jersey, appear best equipped to pre-empt problems and maximize benefits from dredging projects. North Carolina would likely benefit from broader planning pre- and post-project. In addition, some state policies consider the plans for applications of dredged materials during project approval determinations, but specific guidance has not yet been adopted. Developing specific guidelines for dredged sediment reuse for North Carolina could significantly advance the state’s dredging management. All states sampled in this study weighed the balance of the environmental and economic implications of dredging, but states that require mitigation for approved, detrimental dredging projects appeared most successful in ensuring that balance. Most states also required, or had the authority to impose monitoring of the dredged area after the project is completed. The interview responses suggested that states with robust mitigation/compensation and post-monitoring policy are not always the most effective in protecting natural resources because the mandated initiatives to restore degraded areas after a project have mixed success. Policy data and interviews highlighted the unique nature of dredging projects and the need to have any mitigation occur as soon as possible. The development of secondary and even tertiary compensation schemes could ensure the success of mitigation measures. Mitigation/compensation is one of the only identified policy subcategories where policy enaction stands to markedly improve dredge management in NC. Few states have economic evaluations that quantitatively constrain the value of their coastal resources. New Jersey is the only state in this study with a comprehensive benchmark to allow economic considerations to be weighed regarding values of natural systems. Most states lack robust economic data to make cost-benefit driven dredge decisions. The interviews revealed that some states may not even have economists engaged in decision making around dredging. Although North Carolina considers environmental factors, the state lacks detailed natural resource economic evaluations to utilize in the application of dredging policy. Incorporating the commercial, recreational, industrial, environmental, and inherent value of NC’s coastal resources

would lead to better-informed cost-benefit analyses and likely promote sustainable dredging initiatives. Notably, throughout the study states, there was a lack of readily available project level reporting regarding dredging budgets, schedule and history. State dredging budgets, project schedules, and project histories are sporadically available. Enhanced data availability on dredging activities is an area which is likely to improve planning and execution of dredging statewide. Beneficial reuse initiatives have received significant attention as multiple sectors have recognized its value for diverse applications including, backfill material (Crawford, 2004), soil remediation (Koropchak et al., 2016), and as fill for construction purposes (Smith, Howard & Vahedifard, 2018). The ecosystem services provided by coastal habitats are diverse and considerable (Mitsch et al. 2015; Spalding et al., 2014; Sutton-Grier & Sandifer, 2019; Arkema et al., 2013) and have drawn recent additional attention to these threatened habitats for beneficial reuse investigations. Increasingly, coastal states need dredged sediment to bolster accretion rates in marshes, replenish beaches, stabilize shorelines, and raise the elevation as coastlines erode, marsh platforms subside, and traditional strategies become obsolete (Temmerman et al., 2013). Beneficial reuse offers a solution as a sustainable approach that retains coastal sediments within the ecosystem where it is needed, rather than disposing of it in the open ocean or in an upland disposal facility. Hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sediment is dredged annually (USACE, 2002) and, despite the evidence that the beneficial reuse of the dredged material can be used to successfully stabilize and restore coastal habitats (Staver et al., 2020, Stagg & Mendelssohn, 2010; Cornwell et al., 2020), much of the dredged material remains underutilized (Costa-Pierce & Weinstein, 2002). Recent extreme events have demonstrated the vulnerability of coastlines and the urgent need to protect them. Utilizing dredged material to enhance resilience in both natural and built systems is likely to become a pivotal part of proactive shoreline preservation and there are numerous opportunities for expansion and innovation. Our key findings were:

1. Dredging policies are remarkable consistent in the states sampled

2. Implementation of those policies does vary between states to some extent, though all policies include some judgement to make context dependent decisions

3. While state policies include consideration of applications of dredged materials, specific

project level guidance for use could be provided

4. Utilizing dredged material to enhance the resilience of both the natural and built systems is well understood, but there are opportunities to enhance this proactive and provide numerous benefits to coastal regions

This study underscored the potential for beneficial reuse of dredged sediments along the east coast and North Carolina’s unique challenge and opportunity given its vast and valuable sheltered coastlines. There are significant opportunities for North Carolina to strengthen

dredging practices through policy implementation and advocating for modification of dredging project planning that explicitly incorporates the use of dredged materials to enhance coastal resilience. Enacting new policies may be appropriate in some cases, but implementation appears to be the phase that presents the most opportunity.

APPENDIX A Policy Category Descriptions

1) State-Specific Permits

a) Dredge Permit i) Does the state issue dredge permits? ii) Does the state have a permitting process?

b) Dredge Discharge Permit i) Does the state have a dredge disposal permit/permitting process?

(1) Note whether the disposal aspect is included in the dredging permitting process) 2) Wetlands/Environmental Considerations

a) Water Type Restrictions i) Are state water bodies subcategorized in a way that affects the types of activities allowed

there and whether a permit is required? b) Temporal Restrictions

i) Does the state have the power to influence the scheduling of the project in consideration of environmental impacts?

ii) Are there season/month-specific restrictions or environmental windows? c) SAV Considerations

i) Does the authoritative body consider impacts of project on submerged aquatic vegetation? d) Hydrological Considerations

i) Does the authoritative body consider impacts of project on hydrology? (1) Keywords: erosion, sediment transport, flow dynamics, altering bathymetry

e) Fish/Wildlife Considerations i) Does the authoritative body consider impacts of project on fisheries and wildlife?

(1) This valuation is based on ecological function, not economic f) Envi. Considerations

i) Catch-all for regulations that do not specify hydrology, temporal restrictions, SAV, fish/wildlife, scenic/aesthetic value separately (1) May group them together in a goal statement: “we want to protect the state’s coastal

resources, etc.” g) Economic Considerations

i) Does the permitting authority consider the costs or future revenues of a project that does not include environmental factors? (1) Such as considering impacts to fisheries based solely on monetary worth, not ecological

worth h) Scenic/Aesthetic Value Considerations

i) Does the state recognize the scenic value of areas? ii) Is the scenic value of an area safeguarded in regards to dredging projects?

i) Buffer Area Protections i) Are there proximity requirements for projects or quotas in place to maintain a certain area

around environmentally-important lands/waters? j) “Special Area” Designations

i) Can the state make designations to protect state lands? ii) Does the state have/outline “areas of concern”?

3) Dredged Sediment Disposal a) Beneficial Reuse

i) Non-specific mention/promotion of beneficial reuse of dredge spoil material as beach nourishment, fill, etc. (1) Does not include a specific procedure/process

b) Project Pre-Assessment i) Does the state require applicant to monitor/assess baseline environmental characteristics and

expected environmental impacts prior to dredging? (1) Considers the dredging project separately from disposal or policy outlines pre-assess for

dredging actions and disposal conjointly (consider moving to “best practices”) c) Post-Monitoring

i) Does the state require applicant to monitor/assess environmental impacts after the project is completed?

d) Dredged Material Standards i) Are there procedures for evaluating dredge material/spoil prior to application/disposal that is

not a confined disposal facility? (1) Suitability/compatibility determination based on standards/levels of a given

chemical/bacteria/toxin ii) Are there procedures in place for proper disposal if dredge spoil is contaminated?

4) Best Practices

a) BMPs i) Is there a BMP in place for dredging or dredge material disposal that is not covered in other

categories? b) Cost/Benefit or Alternatives Analysis

i) Does the state evaluate a project by recognizing need for project/economic cost vs. environmental impact of project? (1) May include a specific list or may be broad, such as “the director will evaluate need”

c) Specific Dredge Techniques/Minimization i) Does the state require/outline/promote/encourage certain procedures/machinery for dredging?

(1) E.g. siltation curtains ii) Are there state limitations/minimizations regarding project size/dredging dimensions?

d) Mitigation/Compensation i) Does the state require the applicant to amend or restore the disturbed area to reduce or

mitigate impacts after the project is completed? (1) May include ratio (area impacted : area to be restored)

APPENDIX B Dredging Database

North Carolina Table 2. Dredging policies for North Carolina by category.

NORTH CAROLINA


Dredge Permit

1. Written permission from Division of Water Quality; (I)(C) & III 2. 113-229 Permits to dredge or fill (a) 3. “General Permits”, Bullet #5

Dredge Disposal Permit 1. 143-215.83. (C)

Wetlands &


Water Type Restrictions

1. 15A NCAC 07H .0201 (2020) 2. G.S. 143-214.1; 3.Pg 1. (h-i); 3. 113A-113. Areas of environmental concern; in general (b)(1-2)

Temporal Restrictions

1. Section 4: Rules for Specific Types of Projects 2. Section 4: Rules for Specific Types of Projects, "Oceanfront

Erosion Response" SAV Considerations

1. No dredging in SAV, "Mechanical Dredging" 2. 15A NCAC 07H.0208(6) 3. 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(I)

Hydrological Considerations

1. "Permit Decisions" 2. 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(D) 3. Totaling and Reporting of Impacts: III. Isolated and Other Non-

404 Wetlands Fish/Wildlife Considerations

1. 113A-113. Areas of environmental concern; in general (b)(4)d, f 2. “Permit Decisions”

Envi Considerations

1. NC-CREWS does functional assessments of individual wetlands for planning/management

2. 113A-113. Areas of environmental concern; in general (b)(1-9) 3. "Permit Decisions" 4. 113-229. Permits to dredge or fill (c1)(2)

Economic Considerations **

Scenic/Aesthetic Value

1. 113A-113 (b)(4) 2. D. Natural and Cultural Resource AEC’s 3. "Permit Decisions" Bullet #2

Buffer Area Protections 1. 15A NCAC 07H.0209(d)(10)

"Special Area" Designations

1. CAMA Permit- Section 2: Areas of Envi Concern 2. III(c)2. (pg 2) 3. 113A-113. Areas of environmental concern; in general (a) 4. 143B-279.8.(a) Coastal Habitat Protection Plans 5. 113A-113(b)(1-9). Areas of environmental concern; in general

(a) 6. 15A NCAC 07H.0208(5)

NORTH CAROLINA

Dredged Sediment Disposal

Beneficial Reuse 1. 15A NCAC 07H .0312 2. 113-229 (h1-h2) 3. 76-40 Navigable waters; certain practices regulated (a) 4. Hydraulic Dredging 5. Oceanfront Erosion Response

Project Pre-Assessment **

Post-Monitoring

1. 143-215.66 Monitoring required 2. WQ Gen. Cert. (II.)(10) 3. WQ Gen. Cert. (II.)(28)

Dredge Material Standards

1. 15A NCAC 07H.0208 (b)(1)(c-d) 2. 113-229(h1-3), (i) 3. 15A NCAC 07H .0312(1-2) Technical Standards for Beach Fill

Projects (2020) 4. Section 4, Beach Nourishment

Best Practices

BMPs

1. 2. Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Practices (pg 4) 2. II. General Conditions (5) 3. II. General Conditions (20-21) 4. NC Sediment & Erosion Control Manual + Design Standards in

Sensitive Watersheds Cost/Benefit or Alternatives Analysis

1. 113-229 Permits to dredge or fill in or about estuarine waters or State-owned lakes (e1)

2. 15A NCAC 07H.0205(c) (2020) Specific Dredge Techniques/Minimization

1. Activities [that] require written approval: III(a-b, d) 2. 15A NCAC 07H.0208(a)(3)(A) 3. 15A NCAC 07H.0208(b)(1)(D); 4.113-229(e)

Mitigation/Compensation

1. Stream & Wetland Compensatory Mitigation 2. (10.) Compensatory Mitigation 3. 143-215.93 Liability for damage caused

South Carolina Table 3. Dredging policies for South Carolina by category.

SOUTH CAROLINA


Dredge Permit

1. Coastal Zone Consistency Certification 2. Critical Area Permit (CAP) 3. Title 48, Sec 38-39-210 (A) 4. Title 49, Sec 48-39-130 (C) 5. Title 48, Sec 48-39-130 (4) 6. VII. Dredging (1) 7. Regulation 19-450.1 8. Regulation 19-450.3 C.

Dredge Disposal Permit

1. SC Regulation 61-101 Water Quality Certification 2. SC Regulation 61-68 Water Classifications and Standards, 5 & 7 3. Title 48, Sec 48-39-130 (1)(C) 4. Title 48, Sec 48-39-150 (C); 5. B. Dredged Material Disposal, Management Authority, Line 1 &

Paragraph 3 + (2) 6. VII. B. Dredge Material Disposal (1)

Wetlands &


Water Type Restrictions 1. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, Criteria for Designation 2. S.C. R.61-68 C. Applicability of Standards

Temporal Restrictions 1. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 1(d) 2. C. Erosion Control Program, Artificial Beach Nourishment (3 & 7) 3. Title 48, Ch 39, Sec 4 (3)

SAV Considerations 1. B. Dredge Material Disposal, 1(a) 2. 3. Resource Policies, I.9(i)


1. Title 48, Sec 48-39-150 (2 & 4) 2. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 1(c) 3. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 1(c)

Fish/Wildlife Considerations

1. Title 48, Sec 48-39-150 (6) & from 3. Resource Policies, II.(6) 2. Title 48, Sec 48-39-150 (3) & from 3. Resource Policies, II.(3) 3. Sec. 48-39-310(2)(e) 4. C. Erosion Control Program, Artificial Beach Nourishment (7) 5. 3. Resource Policies, I.9(i) 6. VIII. Dredging, Policies 1(a) 7. VII. Wildlife and Fisheries Management 1(a) 8. Goal: Protect Endangered Species Habitat, Objective 1-3 9. c. Erosion Control Policies, Artificial Beach Nourishment (3)

Envi Considerations

1. Title 48, Sec 48-39-150 (9) 2. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 1(d-e) 3. 3. Resource Policies, I.2 4. 3. Resource Policies, II.8-9 5. VII. Dredging, 1(a-d) & 2 6. Regulation 19-450.4, 8

Economic Considerations

1. Sec 48-39-250 (1)(b) 2. Erosion Control Program, 2. Policies b(2) 3. A. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, 1, Objectives, Bullets

#1, 2, 4

Scenic/Aesthetic Value 1. Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, 2.a. Areas of Unique

Natural Resource Value 2. A. Goals and Objectives, Objectives (3)

Buffer Area Protections **

SOUTH CAROLINA Wetlands

& Environmental Considerations

cont’d


1. F. Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) 2. 3. Resource Policies, I.2 3. 3. Resource Policies, I.8 4. GAPC designations, S.C. Code Regs. § 30-1(D)(24) (2013)

Dredge Sediment Disposal

Beneficial Reuse 1. Sec. 38-39-260 (5) 2. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 3(C) 3. Regulation 19-450.4, 7

Project Pre-Assessment 1. 3. Resource Policies, I.8

Post-Monitoring 1. Sec. 48-39-290 (8)(a)


1. C. Erosion Control Program, Artificial Beach Nourishment (2) 2. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 1(b) 3. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 3(a-e) 4. C. Erosion Control Program, Artificial Beach Nourishment (1 & 6) 5. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 3(e)

Best Practices

BMPs 1. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 1(b)

Cost/Benefit or Alternatives Analysis

1. Priority of Uses; 2. Title , Sec 48-39-30 (F) 2. C. Erosion Control Program, 2.b(2) 3. B. Dredged Material Disposal, 3(e) 4. 3. Resource Policies, II.7 5. VII., Policies 1(a) 6. A. Goals and Objectives, GOAL 7. S.C. Code Regs. § 30-12(G)(2)(g) (2013) 8. VII. Dredging, 1(d)


1. VIII. Dredging, Policies 1(b)


1. Sec. 48-39-305 (B) 2. Sec. 48-39-310 3. Sec. 48-39-310(2)(g) 4. Goal, Objective 1, Policy 4 5. Goal: Implement Policy of Retreat, Objective 3, Policy 1 6. XII. Activities in Areas of Special Resource Significance, E.

Wetlands, (2) 7. XIV. Mitigation Guidelines, A. Types of Wetlands Impacts Which

May Require Mitigation (1-2) 8. XIV. Mitigation Guidelines, B. Types & Requirements of

Mitigation (3)

Maine Table 4. Dredging policies for Maine by category.

MAINE


Dredge Permit

1. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 3, 480-C, 2(A) (1987) 2. 12 M.R.S.A., Ch 202-A, S 572 2.A 3. 12 M.R.S.A., Ch 220 § 1862 (1997), (2) & (2)(B) 4. 06-096, NRPA Permit, Ch 305, A.(1-2) 5. 06-096, NRPA Permit, Ch 310 D. No Reasonable Impact 6. 06-096, NRPA Permit, Ch 305 15. Public boat ramps, A.3(a) 7. 06-096, NRPA Permit, Ch 305 9. Crossings, A.4(a)

Dredge Disposal Permit 1. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 3, 480-C, 2(C) (1987)

Wetlands &


Water Type Restrictions

1. M.R.S.A. tit. 38, Ch 3 § 464 (1) & F.1(a-e) (1985) 2. M.R.S.A. Tit. 38, Ch 21 § 1901 (1985) 3. Tit. 12, Ch 202-A, S 572 (2) 4. Tit 38, Ch 3, 480-C, 1(A-B) 5. M.R.S.A. Tit 38, Ch 3, 480-BB

Temporal Restrictions 1. 096 Ch 335, C(2) & E

SAV Considerations

1. Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 12.C(2 &10) 2. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 3 § 480-Q, 2.A (1995) 3. 38 M.R.S.A. §480-D 4 (1987) 4. 38 M.R.S.A. §480-D 2 (1989)


1. M.R.S.A. tit. 38, Ch 3 § 480-Q, 12.D (1991) 2. M.R.S.A. tit. 38, Ch 3 § 480-Q, 2.A (1995)


1. 096, Ch 335, B 2. 096, Ch 335, 3.C 3. 38 M.R.S.A., §480-D(3) 4. 38 M.R.S.A., §480-D (9)


1. 096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 18.1(C) 2. 096, Ch 305, 1.A(1, 2)

Economic Considerations **

Scenic/Aesthetic Value 1. A06-096, Ch 315, Natural Resources Protection Act

Buffer Area Protections 1. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 2.A(Note) 2. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 8.B


1. 06-096, Ch 315, 10. Scenic Resources 2. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 3, 480-BB


Beneficial Reuse

1. 12 M.R.S.A., Ch 202-A, S 572 (2.A) 2. Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 12.C(7) 3. Ch 305, Shoreline Stabilization, Section 4 & 9 4. 06-096, Ch 305, 12. Restoration of natural areas, C (a-e)

Project Pre-Assessment

1. 38 M.R.S.A. §480-D (9) 2. 06-096, Ch 335, (4) 3. 06-096, Ch 335, B. 4 & 5

Post-Monitoring **


1. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 13 § 1317-A Discharge prohibited 2. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 8.C(17) 3. 38 M.R.S.A., §480-E (a-b)(1993) 4. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 12.C(4-6, 8) 5. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 18.C(4)

MAINE

Best Practices

BMPs **


1. 096, Ch 335, 3.(A & B): https://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/ 2. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 9(A) Alternatives Analysis 3. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 5(A) General Standards 4. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 2.B(3) General Standards

Specific Dredge Techniques/ Minimization

1. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 12.C(1)a-e 2. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 8.C(14, c) 3. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 3 § 480-P, (2)D 4. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 18.C(1); 5. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 11.B(4-6, 15) 6. 38 M.R.S.A., Ch 3 § 480-P, (2)D 7. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 18.C(1) 8. 06-096, Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 11.B(4-6, 15)


1. 38 M.R.S.A. §480-D 3.C & E (1987) 2. 12 M.R.S.A., Ch 220 § 1861 (1985), #9 3. 38 M.R.S.A., S 480-Z, 3. 4. 06-096, Ch 335, 3. General Standards (D) 5. Ch 305, Permit by Rule, Section 8.C(18) 6. 38 M.R.S.A. Ch 3, 480-Z (2007) 7. 06-096, Ch 335, 8. Mitigation 8. 06-096, Ch 305, Section 12.C(2 &10)

New Jersey Table 5. Dredging policies for New Jersey by category.

NEW JERSEY


Dredge Permit

1. NJAC, 7:7-9.14 (b) 2. NJAC, 7:7-1.4 (b) 3. NJAC, 7:7-1.5, "Coastal permit" 4. CAFRA, 13:19-6 5. WA NJSA, 13:9A-4 (b-c)

Dredge Disposal Permit

1. NJAC, 7:7-9.14 (b) 2. NJAC, 7:7-9.27 (b) 3. NJAC, Appendix G, Ch IV(3)(a & c), Surface waters discharges, p

536 4. NJAC, 7:7-12.6 c.3 & 12.7 10.iii 5. NJAC, 7:7-23.6 (f) 6. WA NJSA, 13:9A-4 (a)

Wetlands &


Water Type Restrictions 1. NJAC, 7:7-1.5, "Conservation restriction"(2 & 4) 2. NJAC, 7:7-12.1 (c)

Temporal Restrictions 1. NJAC, 7:7-12.6 (c)(7) 2. NJAC, 7:7-12.7 (c)(10)vii, 1-4: New Dredging

SAV Considerations 1. NJAC, 7:7-9.6 (2-5) 2. NJAC, 7:7-9.6 (c)


1. NJAC, 7:7-1.5, "Conservation restriction"(6-7) 2. NJAC, 7:7- 9.33 Dry borrow pits (f) 3. NJAC, 7:7-11.2 (C) 4. NJAC, 7:7-11.3 b.2


1. NJAC, 7:7-9.2 (e-g) 2. NJAC, 7:7-9.4 b.2 3. NJAC, 7:7-9.5 (b-c) 4. NJAC, 7:7-9.5 (b-c)

Envi Considerations

1. NJAC, 7:7-1.1 (1) 2. NJAC, 7:7-1.4(b)(5) 3. CAFRA,13:19-6 4. CAFRA,13:19-10 (e) 5. WA NJSA, 13:9A-4 (d)

Economic Considerations 1. NJAC, 7:7-9.4

Scenic/Aesthetic Value

1. NJAC, 7:7-1.1, (2)(iii) 2. NJAC, 7:7-1.1, (3)(ii & iii) 3. NJAC, 7:7-1.1, (6)(i)(10) 4. CAFRA, 13:19-10 (g)

Buffer Area Protections 1. NJAC, 7:7-6.29 (2) 2. NJAC, 7:7-6.27, (4) 3. NJAC, 7:7-9.28 a.1 & 2


1. NJAC, 7:7-9.1 (a)1-4 2. NJAC, 7:7-9.37, Critical wildlife habitat a & b.1


Beneficial Reuse 1. NJAC, 7:7-12.11 Filling (d) 2. NJAC, 7:7-9.14, (j) 3. NJAC, 7:7-15.12 Dredge material placement on land (a, d, g)

NEW JERSEY

Dredge Sediment Disposal cont’d

Project Pre-Assessment

1. NJAC, 7:7-9.36(b-c) 2. NJAC, 7:7-11.2 (c) 3. NJAC, 7:7-11.3 (b) 4. NJAC, 7:7-11.4 (c) 5. NJAC, Appendix G, Ch III(A)(2 & 5)

Post-Monitoring

1. NJAC, 7:7-9.6, Submerged aquatic vegetation (b)(1) 2. NJAC, 7:7-9.14 Wet borrow pits (f)(5) 3. NJAC, 7:7-10.2 Standards applicable to routine beach maintenance

(b)(3) 4. NJAC, 7:7-12.6 Maintenance dredging (c)(3) 5. NJAC, 7:7-12.7, New dredging (c)(10)(iii)


1. NJAC, 7:7-15.12 (b) 2. NJAC, 7:7-12.9 (b)(1 & 2): Dredged Material Disposal 3. CAFRA,13:19-33 4. NJAC, Appendix G, Ch III (C)

Best Practices

BMPs 1. NJAC, Appendix G, Ch IV(A)(3)


1. NJAC, 7:7-9.37(b)(2), Critical wildlife habitat 2. NJAC, 7:7-1.1 c.4(iv) 3. NJAC, 7:7-9.1 (4)(iv) 4. NJAC, 7:7-12.11 Filling e.3


1. NJAC, 7:7-12.6 (c)(6) 2. NJAC, Appendix G, Ch IV(A)(3),

Mitigation/Compensation 1. NJAC, 7:7-9.5 (c)(1) 2. CAFRA, 13:19-18

Virginia Table 6. Dredging policies for Virginia by category.

VIRGINIA


Dredge Permit

1. VA Code, 28.2-1204, 1 (1992) 2. VA Code, 28.2-1203, A (2020) 3. VA Code, 62.1-190 (1968) 4. VA Code, 28.2-521 (2011) 5. VA Code, 28.2-515 (2003) 6. VA Code, 28.2-638 (2020) 7. VA Code, 28.2-1403, § 7. A. (2020) 8. VA Code, 15.2-6601, § 8. (2018) 9. VA Const., Art. XI, B.

Dredge Disposal Permit 1. VA Code, 10.1-1454.1 (2006)

Wetlands &


Water Type Restrictions **

Temporal Restrictions 1. VA Const., Art. XI, § 2-D

SAV Considerations 1. VA Code, 28.2-1205, A.6. (2013)


1. VA Code, 28.2-1205, A.5. (2013) 2. VA Const., Art. XI, § 3-C.1


1. VA Code, 28.2-1205.2, C.2 (2013)

Envi Considerations

1. VA Code, 28.2-1205.2, C.7 (2013) 2. VA Code, 28.2-1208, E.1, 2, 3 & 5 (2020) 3. VA Const., Art. XI, 2 H. 4. VA Const., Art. XI, § 3-C.4

Economic Considerations

1. VA Code, 28.2-1206. 5. E. (2020) 2. VA Code, 28.2-1205, A.2. (2013) 3. 4 VAC 20-400-20 4. VA Const., Art. XI, § 2-D

Scenic/Aesthetic Value **

Buffer Area Protections **


**


Beneficial Reuse

1. VA Code, 28.2-1205.2, D (2013) 2. VA Code, 10.1-704 (1988) 3. VA Code, 28.2-1403, § 3, 5 (2020) 4. VA Const., Art. XI, § 3-A 5. VA Const., Art. XI, § 3-F 6. VA Const., Art. XI, § 3-G 7. VA Const., Art. XI, § B

Project Pre-Assessment 1. VA Code, 28.2-1403, § 4 B. (2020) 2. 4 VAC 20-400-50, E. 3. VA Code, 25-210-80, 5. H.

Post-Monitoring 1. VA Code, 28.2-1212, A (1992) 2. VA Const., Art. XI, § 2-M

VIRGINIA

Dredge Sediment Disposal cont’d


1. VA Const., Art. XI, § 3-C.2 2. VA Const., Art. XI, § D 3. 4 VAC 20-400-50, A-C 4. 4 VAC 20-400-40, 1. 5. SWIGS, Management of Dredged Material 6. VA Code, 28.2-1403, § 4 B. (2020) 7. VA Code, 10.1-704 (1988)

Best Practices

BMPs **


1. VA Code, 28.2-1208, E.5 (2020) 2. VA Code, 28.2-1403, § 9. (2020) 3. VA Code, 28.2-1403, § 10. B.1. (2020)


1. VA Const., Art. XI, § 2-J


1. VA Const., Art. XI, C.3. 2. VA Const., Art. XI, § 2-H 3. VA Const., Art. XI, § D 4. 4 VAC 20-390-50, C & E

APPENDIX C Dredging Policy Perspectives Questionnaire Template

Temporal Restrictions For states with specific restrictions: 1. Compared with other coastal states that have not instituted permanent temporal restrictions on dredging, do you think [state]’s standing temporal restriction (i.e. [list restriction]) have been effective in achieving their ecological protection goals? Are there instances where you feel these prohibitions are overly proscriptive? Are there changes to this approach that you feel would better align science and policy? OR

For states with open-ended restrictions: 1. Compared with other coastal states that have instituted permanent temporal restrictions on dredging, do you think NJ’s open-ended temporal restriction has been effective in achieving their ecological protection goals? Are there instances where you feel these prohibitions are not proscriptive enough? Are there changes to this approach that you feel would better align science and policy?

SAV protections

2. Do you think your state has been successful at protecting SAV against the impacts of dredging? Does an outright prohibition on dredging where SAV is present simplify your decision making vs an approach that specifies avoidance “where possible” or to the “maximum extent feasible”? Do you feel there is greater emphasis on protecting fauna or flora/habitat? Hydrological Considerations (3.) 3. How does [state] evaluate the impact of dredging on circulation, siltation, and hydrology? Without specific thresholds, how are these standards applied uniformly? Monitoring and Mitigation 4. Do you think the state’s post-project monitoring and compensation/mitigation requirements have been effective in identifying and repairing impacts that result from dredging?

Buffer Zone 5. Do you feel that the establishment of buffers and areas of environmental concern have adequately encompassed and protected the state’s coastal habitats and their resources? Do you believe a uniform buffer is appropriate given the variability in project size and environmental context of dredging project? Economic Considerations For states that do not have economic considerations: 6. Has the state’s requirement for investigation of alternative practices and cost/benefit analyses regarding dredging projects impacted the number/frequency/size of projects? Do you feel that the states’ requirements are effective at balancing the economic value of coastal resources and preventing harm to the environment? Has there been pressure to incorporate economic considerations into policy? OR For states that have economic considerations: 6. Has the state’s requirement for investigation of alternative practices and cost/benefit analyses regarding dredging projects impacted the number/frequency/size of projects? Do you feel that the states’ requirements are effective at balancing the economic value of coastal resources and preventing harm to the environment? Has it complicated the permitting process, and if so, how? Do you feel there is sufficient data to rigorously weigh these costs and benefits? Beneficial Reuse 7. What are the successes and shortcomings of to your state’s regulations related to beneficial reuse of dredged sediments? How could beneficial reuse policies and management approaches be improved to better recognize and utilize this resource?

b) Does this leave some coastal areas more vulnerable due to lack of compatibility or being outside of approved beneficial reuse project areas?

Successes and Recommendations 8. What dredging-related management action taken by your agency do you believe to have had the greatest benefit to the sustainability of your state’s coastline and coastal resources (within the last 2-3 decades)? 9. In your experience, what lessons have you learned in your state that you would recommend to other eastern US coastal states regarding dredging policy?

References Arkema, K. K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S. A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Kareiva,

P., Lacayo, M., Silver, J. M. (2013) Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change 3:913–918. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1944

Buzzelli, C. P. (1998) Dynamic simulation of littoral zone habitats in lower Chesapeake Bay: I.

Habitat characterization related to model development. Estuaries 21:673-389. Crawford, A. (2004) Beneficial reuse of dredged sediment for vertical cutoff wall backfill

material. DRUM. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/1473 Cornwell, J. C., Owens, M. S., Staver, L.W., & Stevenson, J. C. (2020) Tidal marsh restoration

at Poplar Island I: Transformation of estuarine sediments into marsh soils. Wetlands, 1-14. https:// 10.1007/s13157-020-01294-5

Costa-Pierce, B. & Weinstein, M. (2002) Use of dredge materials for coastal restoration,

Ecological Engineering 19(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-8574(02)00076-9 Duarte C. M., Losada I. J., Hendriks I. E., Mazarrasa I., Marbà N. (2019) The role of coastal

plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nature Climate Change 3(11): 961–968. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1038/nclimate1970

Erftemeijer, P. L. A., Lewis III, R. R. R. (2006) Environmental impacts of dredging on

seagrasses: A review. 52(12), 1553-1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.09.006

Jackson, E. L., Rowden, A. A., Attrill, M. J., Bossey, S. J., Jones, M. B. (2001) The importance

of seagrass beds as a habitat for fishery species. Oceanography and Marine Biology – An Annual Review, 39, pp. 269-303.

Jones, A. R. (1986) The effects of dredging and spoil disposal on Macrobenthos, Hawkesbury

Estuary, N.S.W. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 17(1), 17-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(86)90798-8

Koropchak, S. C., Daniels, W. L., Wick, A., Whittecar, G. R., Haus, N. (2016) Beneficial use of

dredge materials for soil reconstruction and development of dredge screening protocols. J. Environ. Qual., 45: 62-73. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.12.0529

Levin, L. A., Boesch, D. F. Covich, A., Dahm, C. Erseus, C. Ewel, K. C., Kneib, R. T.,

Moldenke, A. Palmer, M. A., Snelgrove, P., Strayer, D., Weslawski, J. M. (2001) The function of marine critical transition zones and the importance of sediment biodiversity. Ecosystems 4: 430-451.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1944

https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/1473

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01294-5

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.12.0529

McKee, K. L., Patrick, W. H., Jr. (1988) The relationship of smooth cordgrss (Spartina alterniflora) to tidal datums: A review. Estuaries 11(3):143-151.

Miller, W. D., Neubauer, S. C., Anderson, I. C. (2001) Effects of sea level induced disturbances

on high salt marsh metabolism. Estuaries 24(3):357-367. Mitsch W. J., Bernal, B., Hernandez, M. E. (2015) Ecosystem services of wetlands. International

Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 11:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250

Moeller I., Spencer T., French J. R. (1996) Wave attenuation over saltmarsh surfaces:

preliminary results from Norfolk, England. Journal of Coastal Research 12(4): 1009–1016. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4298553

Morris, J. T., Sundareshwar, P. V., Nietch, C. T., Kjerfve, B., Cahoon, D. R. (2002) Responses

of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83: 2869-2877. Nardin, W., Lera, S., and Nienhuis, J. (2020) Effect of offshore waves and vegetation on the

sediment budget in the Virginia Coast Reserve (VA). Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, 45: 3055– 3068. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1002/esp.4951.

Odum, W. E., Odum, E. P., Odum, H. T. (1995) Nature’s pulsing paradigm. Estuaries 18:547-

555. Pineda, M. C., Strehlow, B., Sternel, M., Duckworth, A., den Haan, J., Jones, R., & Webster, N.

S. (2017) Effects of sediment smothering on the sponge holobiont with implications for dredging management. Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group), 7, 1-15. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1038/s41598-017-05243-x

Priest, W.I. (1981) The effects of dredging impacts on water quality and estuarine organisms: a

literature review. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering 247: 240–266.

Ray, G., Clarke, D., Engler, R., Wilber, D., Brostoff, W. (2005) Sedimentation: Potential

Biological Effects of Dredging Operations in Estuarine and Marine Environments. 14. Riggs, S. (2002) Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina Estuaries: North Carolina Sea Grant,

Raleigh, NC, UNC-SB-01-12, 32p. Roman, C. T., Able, K. W., Lazzari, M. A., Heck, K. L. (1990) Primary productivity of

angiosperm and macroalgae dominated habitats in a New England salt marsh: A comparative analysis. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 30: 35-46.

Smith, B. T., Howard, I. L., & Vahedifard, F. (2018) Lightly cemented dredged sediments for

sustainable reuse. Envi. Geotechnics, 5(6), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.16.00019

https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1006250

https://doi.org/10.1680/jenge.16.00019

Spalding, M. D., Mcivor, A. L., Beck, M. W., Koch, E. W., Möller, I., Reed, D. J., Rubinoff, P., Spencer, T., Tolhurst, T. J., Wamsley, T. V., van Wesenbeeck, B. K., Wolanski, E., Woodroffe, C. D. (2014) Coastal ecosystems: A critical element of risk reduction. Conserv. Lett. 7, 293–301. doi:10.1111/conl.12074

Stagg, C. L. & Mendelssohn, I. A. (2010) Restoring ecological function to a submerged salt

marsh, Restoration Ecology, 18(1), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00718.x

Staver, L. W., Stevenson, J. C., Cornwell, J. C., Nidzieko, N. J., Staver, K. W., Owens, M. S.,

Logan, L. Kim, C. & Malkin, S. Y. (2020) Tidal marsh restoration at Poplar Island: II. Elevation trends, vegetation development, and carbon dynamics. Wetlands 40, 1687–1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01295-4

Sutton-Grier, A. E. & Sandifer, P. A. (2019) Conservation of wetlands and other coastal

ecosystems: a commentary on their value to protect biodiversity, reduce disaster impacts, and promote human health and well-being. Wetlands 39, 1295–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1039-0

Temmerman, S., Meire, P., Bouma, T. J., Herman, P. M., Ysebaert, T., De Vriend, H. J. (2013)

Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature 504, 79–83. Turner, R. E. (1991) Tide gauge records, water level rise, and subsidence in the Northern Gulf of

Mexico. Estuaries 14:139-147. Welch, Michelle; Mogren, Eric Thomas; and Beeney, Lauren, "A Literature Review of the

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material and Sediment Management Plans and Strategies" (2016) Center for Public Service Publications and Reports. 34.

Wenger, A. S., Harvey, E., Wilson, S., Rawson, C., Newman, S. J., Clarke, D., Saunders, B. J.,

Browne, N., Travers, M. J., Mcilwain, J. L., Erftemeijer, P. L. A., Hobbs, J.P. A., Mclean, D., Depczynski, M., Evans, R. D. (2017) A critical analysis of the direct effects of dredging on fish. Fish & Fisheries. 18: 967– 985. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1111/faf.12218

coastal dredging: a multi-state synthesis of policy

Documents