Overview of Living Shoreline Permitting and Regulatory Review in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi

In the southeastern coastal United States, Department of Defense (DOD) installations and surrounding communities face significant challenges from coastal erosion, flooding, and sea-level rise. Waves driven by wind, boat traffic, and storms can destroy fragile landforms along the coastline, not to mention sea walls and other traditional or “gray” infrastructure.

A nature-based solution to the issue of coastal erosion that is gaining ground in both the public and private sector is the construction of living shorelines.

The term “living shorelines” encompasses a variety of techniques that can be used in place of a rigid bulkhead or other hard structure. As the name suggests, living shorelines typically involve the use of native material such as oyster reefs and/or saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) to reduce wave and tidal energy. They can involve some degree of grading to achieve moderately sloped transition from intertidal areas to uplands and maintain or reestablish a natural connectivity at the land-water interface. With these design features, living shorelines not only reduce erosive forces but also enhance biodiversity and increase heterogeneity of habitat features.

The array of benefits from living shoreline projects inure to both the landowner – from erosion control – and to surrounding communities – through ecosystem services benefits. Research also suggests that living shorelines are a smart financial investment as compared to a wooden bulkhead that would require the landowner to incur significantly more costs over the long term due to maintenance and replacement needs.

This guidebook was produced through an engagement with the Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS). It is intended to help minimize delays in project development by providing useful background information on relevant agencies, administrative processes, and the underlying laws in four key states in the Southeast region: North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi.

For each state, this guidebook describes:

The state coastal zone management program;
State permitting requirements related to water quality and wetlands protection;
State public trust responsibilities for submerged lands;
Federal permitting under Clean Water Act Section 404; and,
Key design aspects of living shorelines that will affect the ability to obtain necessary permits and approvals.

Key Takeaways

The research that went into developing this guidebook was extensive. It included interviews with project proponents, regulators, and other stakeholders, as well as documentary legal and policy research and participation in several workshops and conferences.

Recommendations for Project Proponents:

Understand that, at the end of the day, regulatory agency staff are looking for ways to authorize your project.
Early review of state and federal general permit provisions, and efforts to design projects around those conditions, will make permitting and regulatory review more straightforward. While general permits may be limited to small-scale projects, their overall precepts can provide valuable insights to designing larger-scale projects.
Early engagement with key regulatory staff will enhance efficiency in permitting and regulatory review. Request pre-application informal conferences with:
- State coastal zone management program consistency coordinator;
- State regulatory/permitting staff;
- US Army Corps of Engineers district office regulatory staff;
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries staff; and
- US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Ecological Services.
Recognize that coastal zone consistency determinations take into account many viewpoints and concerns – environmental, social, and economic. Federally approved coastal zone management programs cover a variety of issues including habitat conversion and tradeoffs, opinions of neighboring landowners and businesses, and climate change resilience. Be proactive about addressing those concerns in conversations with and documentation provided to coastal zone consistency coordinators.
Budgeting adequate time for regulatory review and permitting is critical for ensuring that approvals align with funding authorizations and spending cycles. Recognize that larger or more complex projects will typically involve longer regulatory review and permitting timelines, with requests for additional information from permit-seekers that may require additional research and/or outside experts.

Recommendations for Policymakers

Permitting regimes originally designed to manage development may be need to be reformed as we move into an era of solving coastal climate challenges with natural infrastructure. Alternative permitting processes for nature-based solutions should be considered. Priority review for projects that are substantially nature-based should also be considered.
Convene practitioner advisory groups to better understand their experiences with permitting. Use that information to inform and prioritize the development of agency-wide guidance or regulatory reform to address key issues such as sea level rise, habitat conversion/trading, or other topics that warrant consistent treatment across projects.
Examine whether the linear foot limitations on general permits might be altered (increased) while still adhering to the statutory requirement that projects authorized under general permits only result in minimal impacts, both individually and cumulatively.
Creative alignment of state and federal general permits can simplify permitting – see, e.g., USACE Wilmington District Regional General Permit 1536 and USACE Jacksonville District State Programmatic General Permit VI.
Investing in training and dedicated regulatory staff can improve familiarity with living shoreline design and enable effective and efficient permit processing.
Interagency coordination teams that are designed around specific geographies and project types (e.g., for living shorelines or, more broadly, ecological restoration in a particular area) can be an effective way to encourage rapid processing – see, e.g., San Francisco Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team and Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force.

To read the entire report, click here.