Inventory of Shellfish Restoration Permitting & Programs in the Coastal States Prepared for The Nature Conservancy by Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program National Sea Grant Law Center Troy University December 2014 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 ALABAMA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 CALIFORNIA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 CONNECTICUT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 DELAWARE ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 FLORIDA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 LOUISIANA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 58 MAINE .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 69 MARYLAND ................................................................................................................................................................................ 77 MASSACHUSETTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 86 MISSISSIPPI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 95 NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................................................................................................................................................ 103 NEW YORK .............................................................................................................................................................................. 111 NEW JERSEY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 120 NORTH CAROLINA ............................................................................................................................................................... 128 OREGON ................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 RHODE ISLAND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 147 SOUTH CAROLINA ............................................................................................................................................................... 156 TEXAS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 165 VIRGINIA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 173 WASHINGTON ....................................................................................................................................................................... 181 This product was prepared by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program and the National Sea Grant Law Center under TNC Cost Center Number 1981203049 with additional Funding From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department oF Commerce. The statements, Findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those oF the author and do not necessarily reFlect the views oF NOAA or the U.S. Department oF Commerce. 2 INTRODUCTION When undertaking a shellfish restoration project, it can be challenging to navigate the permitting requirements and policies of each state. Through funding from The Nature Conservancy, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program, in collaboration with the National Sea Grant Law Center, researched the regulatory framework governing shellfish restoration projects in 21 coastal states. For each state, the legal team identified the responsible agencies, the application process, and the general regulatory framework. In addition, the legal team summarized oyster harvesting requirements, tools for protecting shellfish reefs and restoration projects, and state mitigation policies that incorporate shellfish. At the request of The Nature Conservancy, information was also collected on existing restoration efforts through personal interviews with state agency personnel. Niki Pace, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program, served as project lead on this report. Other members of the legal team included Stephanie Showalter Otts, Terra Bowling, and Catherine Janasie of the National Sea Grant Law Center. Additional support was provided by Dr. Christopher Boyd of Troy University. The phrase shellfish restoration can be defined in multiple ways. For the purpose of this project, the legal team focused on policies addressing shellfish habitat and reef creation, restoration, and conservation. The team did not include policies strictly focused on restoring the shellfish stock for commercial harvest, which may be contained within some states’ aquaculture programs. In creating a state-by-state guide to shellfish restoration permitting, the legal team identified several common areas of regulatory oversight. At the federal level, restoration projects require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The USACE regulates activities in wetlands and waterways including the discharge of dredged or fill material and work within tidal, navigable waterways. The USACE issues several different types of permits depending on the project: nationwide general permits, regional general permits, and individual permits. Nationwide General Permits (NWPs) are used by the USACE to authorize activities across the country that cause minimal environmental impacts. The permitted activity must satisfy all of the permit conditions, which include compliance with state or regional laws and regulations. In certain districts, states may have rejected the use of NWPs through their federal consistency review authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act. States may also impose state specific conditions on the use of NWPs within their waters. 3 NWPs relevant to shellfish restoration projects include NWP 13 and NWP 27. NWP 27 authorizes activities associated with the restoration, enhancement, and establishment of tidal and non-tidal wetlands. NWP 27 specifically references the construction of oyster habitat in tidal waters. NWP 13 authorizes activities necessary to prevent erosion and stabilize shorelines. Its use is limited to projects no more than 500 feet in length, unless waived by a USACE district engineer citing minimal adverse effects. In addition, some states have worked with their local USACE District Office to develop Regional General Permits (RGPs) tailored to their state needs. RGPs usually include provisions intended to protect the environment and resources of a specific region. Where applicable, the legal team included reference to relevant RGPs within each state chapter. Projects that do not qualify for NWPs or RGPs will need to seek an individual permit from the USACE. Individual permits are issued for projects that propose extensive impacts, or impacts to rare or fragile aquatic environments. Individual permits are generally required for projects whose proposed impacts will be greater than one acre of wetland or stream. However, the USACE can chose to review any project under an individual permit, regardless of its impact or size. Although not addressed in this report, consultations with other federal agencies may be required as part of the USACE permitting process. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act may trigger these consultations, particularly if the project may impact essential fish habitat or the habitat of threatened or endangered species. Likewise, any potential navigational hazards may require review by the U.S. Coast Guard or designated state agency. At the state level, restoration projects may require permission to use state-owned submerged lands. Projects may also require permitting from state coastal programs that manage activities in coastal waters. In