Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dredging And Disposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies overboard disposal plan for Nassau Heights Creek dredging after VIMS, staff raise ecological concerns
Summary
The Marine Resources Commission denied a proposed mechanical/hydraulic dredging project that would have placed roughly 24,200 cubic yards of dredged material overboard near the mouth of Nassau Heights Creek, citing submerged aquatic vegetation impacts and urging upland/beneficial-use alternatives such as Tangier Island placement.
The Marine Resources Commission on Jan. 28 denied a proposal to mechanically or hydraulically dredge approximately 24,200 cubic yards from the mouth of Nassau Heights Creek, Northampton County, after staff and Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) scientists described likely harms from overboard disposal.
Staff and VIMS raised concerns that recent mapping shows submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the proposed dredge area and that overboard disposal (open-water placement offshore) would cause substantial localized impacts: burial of benthic habitat, increased turbidity, resuspension of contaminants, and reduced food value for fish and shellfish. Staff recommended denial unless the applicant submitted a revised application with a full alternative analysis that included upland or beneficial-use disposal options, notably potential placement at Tangier Island.
Andy Dutton, representing the Eastern Shore Regional Navigable Waterways Committee and the applicant, said the proposal aims to restore a seven-foot navigation channel to Nashua/Nassau Creek and that the dredged material is predominantly fine sand. He and local stakeholders argued the creek’s navigability is essential to aquaculture, commercial fishing and emergency access and said funding constraints limit immediate upland disposal options.
Staff noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had paused public notice pending a revised submission and that if the Corps were to process the application, federal review would typically take 120 days at minimum, more commonly five to seven months. Staff also advised the commission that the applicant had identified four potential beneficial-use sites at Tangier and that staff and the applicant plan further site-mapping work.
Associate Member White moved to deny the permit; Associate Member Branson seconded. The motion carried 8-0. Staff recommended, and the commission’s deliberations supported, that the applicant resubmit after identifying and documenting feasible upland or beneficial-use alternatives (including Tangier), update the SAV-impact mapping with current data, and allow the Corps and state agencies to complete coordinated review of a revised proposal.
The denial preserves the commission’s current policy preference against open-water disposal when alternative upland or beneficial-use options are feasible and not unduly costly, and it reflects recent science on the ecological risks of overboard disposal near vegetated shallow waters.
