Tidal Shoreline Management Study

8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study

1/30

REPORT OF THE VIRGINIAINSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE

Study of Tidal ShorelineManagement in Virginia:Recommendations for LivingShorelines and Tidal Resources

Sustainability[SJR 35 (2010)]

TO THE GOVERNOR ANDTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA

SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 16

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIARICHMOND2010


2/30


3/30

Study of Tidal Shoreline Management

in Virginia

Recommendations for living shorelines and tidalresources sustainability

ReporttotheGovernorandVirginiaGeneralAssemblyinResponseto

Senate Joint Resolution No. 35

SubmittedByCenterforCoastalResourcesManagement

VirginiaInstituteofMarineScienceCollegeofWilliamandMary

12/17/2010

i


4/30

PrefaceTheVirginiaInstituteofMarineScience(VIMS)wasdirectedunderSenateJointResolution35,to

conductastudyoftidalshorelinemanagementinVirginia.Theresolutiondirected fourspecifictasksto

beincludedinthestudy:(i)reviewtidalshorelinemanagementintheCommonwealthandsimilarly

situatedstates;(ii)identifypotentialchangestotheregulatorystructureoftidalshorelinemanagement

toreducethecostandtimerequiredtoissueapermit;(iii)identifyregulatoryinnovationsthatwould

increaseadoptionoflivingshorelinesamongshorelinelandowners;and(iv)makespecific

recommendationstoachievethesustainedprotectionoftidalshorelineresources.

TheCenterforCoastalResourcesManagementatVIMSwasdelegatedtheresponsibilityforthestudy.

WeconducteddetailedreviewsoftheshorelinemanagementconstructofVirginiaalongwiththree

states:Massachusetts(issimilartoVirginiawithprivatepropertyownershiptolowwater)and

neighboringNorthCarolinaandMaryland,andalessdetailedreviewofothercoastalstates.Thereview

wastoassessmodelsforuseinVirginiathataddressmultijurisdictionaldecisionmakingorliving

shorelinesorbothandatthesametime,lookforpossiblecomplicationsorineffectiveprogrammatic

effortstoavoid. Thereviewenabledtheidentificationofpossibleoptionsfortimeandcostssavingsfor

permitissuanceandsupportedtheidentificationofregulatoryinnovationstoincreasetheuseofliving

shorelines.AlookatthecurrentshorelinemanagementstructureinVirginiaandthefuturecastof

adverseresourceeffectsduetomanagementdecisionsandnaturallossescallsforacomprehensive

approachtoachievesustainabilityofshorelineresources.

Wewould

like

to

acknowledge

Joan

Salvati

and

Shawn

Smith,

DCR,

Division

of

Chesapeake

Bay

Local

Assistance,andTonyWatkinsonandRobertNeikirk,VirginiaMarineResourcesCommissionfor

assistancewiththisreport.Wealsothankthelocalgovernmentstaffthatprovidedinformationon

shorelinedecisionprocesses.TheCenterforCoastalResourcesManagementattheVirginiaInstituteof

MarineScienceisresponsibleforthecontentofthisreportanditdoesnotreflecttheformalpositionof

anyotherindividualsoragencies.

ii


5/30

Tableof

Contents

Preface .......................................................................................................................................................... ii

TableofContents......................................................................................................................................... iii

Figures ............................................................................................................................... ........................... iv

ExecutiveSummary ............................................................................................................................... ........ v

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... v

TidalShorelineManagementinVirginia....................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

TheCurrent

Issues ....................................................................................................................................1

ReviewofVirginiasShorelineManagementConstruct ............................................................................... 2

TheCurrentIssues ....................................................................................................................................7

OtherStatesShorelineManagementPrograms ...........................................................................................8

Massachusetts ..........................................................................................................................................8

NorthCarolina...........................................................................................................................................8

Maryland ............................................................................................................................... .................... 9

PotentialCostandTimeSavings ................................................................................................................... 9

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 12

IdentifyRegulatoryInnovationstoPromoteLivingShorelines ..................................................................12

Recommendations.................................................................................................................................. 16

RecommendationstoAchieveSustainedProtectionofTidalShorelineResources...................................16

Recommendation....................................................................................................................................17

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................18

Citations ......................................................................................................................................................19

iii


6/30

FiguresFigure1.SchematicofManagementAuthoritiesalongVirginiaTidalShoreline. ........................................1

Figure2.

State

Local

Shoreline

Management

interface .............................................................................. 1

Figure3.TableofWetlandsBoardandChesapeakeBayBoardmembership ............................................. 1

Figure4.TableofWetlandsBoardandChesapeakeBayBoardmembership ............................................. 1

Figure5.DecisiontreeforundefendedShorelines ......................................................................................1

Figure6.OptionstoPromoteLivingShorelines ........................................................................................... 1

iv


7/30

ExecutiveSummaryVirginianowconfrontsthechallengeofenhancingitsexistingtidalshorelinemanagementprogramsto

makethemmoreefficientandeffective. Theprogramshavedevelopedeffectiveprotocolsfordealing

withtheirindividualpurviews,buttwoissueshaveemerged:thediversityofprogramshasbecome

confusingfortheregulatedcommunity;andtheenvironmentaloutcomeshavenotbeenoptimal. This

reportsummarizesareviewoftheseissuesandpresentsseveralrecommendationsforprogram

enhancementsthatspecificallyfocusonmakingVirginiastidalshorelinemanagementmoreefficient

andmoreeffective.

Theperceptionisthatthecommongoalsofthevariousregulatoryprogramsmightbemoreeffectively

promotedacrosstheCommonwealthifthereweregreateruniformityinproceduresandmore

substantiveintegrationofguidancefortheindividualprograms.

Opportunitiestoreducecostandtimeassociatedwithshorelinemanagementprogramsliemostlyin

providingamorepredictable,transparentprocess. Improvedcoordinationamongmanagement

agenciescanachievetimeandcostsavingwhileatthesametimeimprovingtheintegrationofthe

decisions. Savingscanalsobepromotedbyaddressinggapsandoverlapsinthecollectionofprogram

regulationandguidancethatimpactpermittingdecisions.

Therearemanyfinancialincentiveoptionstopromotelivingshorelinesthatcouldbesuccessfulin

Virginia.However,manyoftheoptionsfunctionallyreducefeesorrevenueswhichoftenhelpoffsetthe

costof

regulatory

permit

programs.

These

options

would

potentially

create

afiscal

issue

for

agencies.

Permitreliefintheformofexemptions,generalpermits,orpermitpreferenceseemstobeaviable

optionwhichifproperlycrafted,offerstimeandcostsavingstopropertyownersandpermitting

authorities.Dependingupontheformthatsuchreliefmighttake,regulatoryorlegislativeactionis

probablynecessary.

Virginiadoesnothaveanofficialpositionontheuseoflivingshorelinesforerosionprotection. A

statementofpolicythatidentifiesapreferencefortheuseofexistingorenhancednaturalshoreline

habitatsforerosionprotectionwouldproviderecognitionthatlivingshorelinedesignsareadesirable

approachformanyoftheCommonwealthstidalareas.

Recommendations1. Virginiashoulddevelopintegratedguidanceformanagementoftidalshorelinesystems. The

guidanceshouldidentifypreferredshorelinemanagementapproachesfortheshorelinetypesfoundin

Virginia. TheintentshouldbeforallregulatoryauthoritieswithpurviewoveractivitiesalongVirginias

tidalshorelinestousetheguidancetoachievegreatercollectiveefficiencyandeffectivenessin

managementoftheCommonwealthsresources.Developmentoftheguidanceshouldbeacooperative

v


8/30

effortinvolvingtheDepartmentofConversationandRecreation,theVirginiaMarineResources

Commission,andtheVirginiaInstituteofMarineScience.

2.Virginiashouldconductastudytoidentifyandassessanypotentialregulatoryissuesassociatedwith

developmentandimplementationofintegratedguidancefortidalshorelinemanagementshouldbe

conducted.

3.Virginiashouldofficiallyidentifyapreferenceforlivingshorelinedesignsasamanagementstrategy

fortidalshorelinesystems. Thepolicycouldbearticulatedintheformoflegislation,executiveorder,or

regulation.However,aregulatorypreferencepromulgatedbyoneagencydoesnotguaranteethesame

forothermanagemententities. Thismight,therefore,fallshortofestablishingaunifyingfocusfor

regulatoryprogramsthatcouldimproveefficiencyandeffectivenessoftheCommonwealthsshoreline

managementefforts. Forthisreason,alegislativeorexecutiveactionwouldbepreferable.

4.Virginiashoulddevelopandimplementageneralpermitforlivingshorelines.Thepermit

developmentprocessshouldinvolvetheDepartmentofConversationandRecreation,theVirginia

MarineResources

Commission,

and

the

Virginia

Institute

of

Marine

Science,

with

technical

assistance

fromothershorelinemanagemententitiesasnecessary.Theprocessshouldbecoordinatedwiththe

U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineerstoavoidconflictswiththeirpermittingrequirements.

5.VirginiashouldadvancetheeffortscurrentlyunderwayatVIMStodevelopandpromulgate

comprehensivecoastalresourcemanagementplansforallTidewaterlocalities. Theplansshouldbe

specificallydesignedtosupportintegratedmanagementofcurrenttidalshorelineresources,andshould

alsoprovideinformationtosupportlocalplanningeffortstoadapttochangingconditionsinthecoastal

zone,includingsealevelrise.

6.

Virginia

should

promote

the

education

of

both

public

officials

and

the

general

public

regarding

the

needforintegratedshorelinemanagement. Successinmanagingtheriskstobothhumanandnatural

resourceswillrequirebothregulatorsandtheregulatedcommunitytounderstandtheissuesandadjust

expectationsforwhatispossibleandwhatisappropriatealongVirginiasshorelines.

vi


9/30

TidalShorelineManagementinVirginia

Introduction

Virginiafirstpassedlegislationtoprotecttidalshorelineresourcesin1972. TheTidalWetlandsAct

specificallyfocusedontidalmarsheswhichwereunderstoodtoprovideavarietyofvaluableservicesin

coastalecosystems.Sincethattime,amendmentstotheTidalWetlandsAct(TWA),theCoastalPrimary

SandDuneandBeachesAct,SubaqueousLandspermittingandtheChesapeakeBayPreservationAct

havebeenusedtoprovideregulatoryoversighttoallportionsofshorelinesystemsfromtheuplandsto

theadjacentshallowwaters. Allofthesechangeshavebeeninresponsetothegrowingunderstanding

oftheimportanceofnaturalshorelinesystemsformaintenanceofwaterqualityandsupportofaquatic

life.

Intheirnaturalcondition,tidalshorelinesystemsplayanimportantroleintheecologyoftheentire

coastalecosystem. Tidalshorelinesystemsincludetheuplandareaimmediatelyalongtheshoreline

(riparianarea),theintertidalarea(marshesandbeachesthatextendfromtheriparianareatothelow

watermark),andthenearshoresubaqueouslands(shallowaquaticenvironmentadjacenttotheshore).

Incombinationtheseelementsoftidalshorelinescanaffectwaterqualitybytakingupandsequestering

nutrients,sedimentsandpollutantscarriedinrunoffandgroundwaterfromtheuplands. Theyarealso

importantashabitatforawidevarietyofplantsandanimals,providingfoodandcoverformany

organismsatcriticalstagesoftheirlifecycle. Naturallyvegetatedshorelinesystemsareeffectiveat

controllingerosionandbufferinguplandsfromstormdamage. Intheirnaturalstatethesesystemshave

acapacity

to

respond

to

changes

in

the

environment,

such

as

sea

level

rise,

while

maintaining

many

of

thefunctionsthatmakethemvaluabletosociety.

TheCurrentIssuesTheregulatoryprogramsVirginiahasenactedformanagementofshorelinesystemsareallfocusedon

sustainingthecapacityofthesystemstoperformthemanyvaluablefunctionsthathavebeenidentified.

However,becausetheunderstandingofthesesystemshasevolvedinsteps,theregulatorystructure

Virginiauseshasalsobeendevelopedinsteps. Theresultisanassemblageofprogramswithindividual,

but

overlapping

interests,

and

approaches

that

are

not

always

effectively

coordinated.

The

consequencesofthisregulatoryframeworkhavenotalwaysbeendesirable. Despitecareful

developmentandimplementationbytheresponsibleagenciesatstateandlocallevels,thepermitting

processisnotalwayseasilyunderstoodbytheregulatedcommunity,andtheenvironmentaloutcomes

frommultiplereviewanddecisionprocesseshavenotalwaysbeenoptimal.

1


10/30

Despitetheregulatoryattentiontoprotectionofshorelineresources,Virginiacontinuestolosetidal

wetlands,beachesandnaturalriparianvegetation. Impactsariseasaresultofbothhumanandnatural

causes.

Whileerosionandsealevelriseareresponsibleforsomeofthelosses,themostdramaticchangeshave

resultedfrom

human

activities.

With

the

expansion

of

regulatory

coverage

over

the

past

several

decades,mostoftheseimpactshaveresultedfromactivitiesthatwerepermitted. Someofthese

impactshavebeenapprovedafterafindingthatthebenefitsoutweighthedetriments. Otherimpacts

havebeenaresultofregulatoryconundrumscreatedwhenoverlappingprogramsdonothave

coordinatedvisionsofthebeststrategyformanagingashorelineelement.

Filling,clearing,andarmoringshorelinesformanydifferentreasonshaveresultedincumulativeimpacts

toriparianareasandtidalwetlandsforsometime. Accordingtothereport,StatusandTrendsofWetlandsintheCoastalWatershedsoftheEasternUnitedStates,1998to2004(StedmanandDahl2008),about18percentofallcoastalwetlandslossesaretidalsaltmarsh. InVirginia,permittedimpactsto

tidal

wetlands

from

1993

to

2003

amounted

to

about

42

acres

(Duhring

2004).

Similarly,

the

current

trendforriparianvegetationistowardlossofnaturalcovertodevelopment.

Thecumulativelossesoftidalwetlandsandriparianvegetationarehavingadverseeffectsonthehealth

ofVirginiastidalwatersandtheanimalsthatinhabitthem. Shorelinealterationlinkedwithwatershed

landdevelopmenthasbeenshowntohavenegativeeffectsonwaterqualityandawidevarietyof

aquaticanimalpopulationsincludingbluecrabs,finfish,marshbirds,andthecommunitiesoforganisms

livinginthenearshoresedimentsunderwater(Lerbergetal.2000;DeLucaetal.2004;Kingetal.2005;

Bilkovicetal.2006;Seitzetal.2006;BilkovicandRoggero2008).

Virginianowconfrontsthechallengeofenhancingitsexistingtidalshorelinemanagementprogramsto

makethemmoreefficientandeffective. Theprogramshavedevelopedeffectiveprotocolsfordealing

withtheirindividualpurviews,buttwoissueshaveemerged:thediversityofprogramshasbecome

confusingfortheregulatedcommunity;andtheenvironmentaloutcomeshavenotbeenoptimal. This

reportsummarizesareviewoftheseissuesandpresentsseveralrecommendationsforprogram

enhancementsthatspecificallyfocusonmakingVirginiastidalshorelinemanagementmoreefficient

andmoreeffective.

ReviewofVirginiasShorelineManagementConstructVirginiaisoneofseveralstatesthatmanageshorelineresourceswithavarietyofregulatoryauthorities

implementedatmultiplelevelsofgovernment.

TheTidalWetlandsAct(Va.Code28.21300etseq.)establishedastatelocalprogrammodelgiving

regulatoryauthorityovertidalwetlandstotheVirginiaMarineResourcesCommission(VMRC)withthe

2


11/30

optionforTidewaterlocalitiestoassumetheprimaryresponsibility. Localitiesareallowedtoadopta

modelordinanceandregulatetidalwetlandsthroughacitizenWetlandBoardwithoversightbythe

VMRC. Theintentofthelawwastobalancepreservationanduseoftidalwetlandsinordertoprotect

theecosystemservicestheyprovide. Thoseservicesarespecificallyidentifiedtoinclude:productionof

wildlife,waterfowl,finfish,shellfishandflora;protectionagainstfloods,tidalstorms,andtheerosion;

absorptionof

silt

and

pollutants;

and

provision

of

recreational

and

aesthetic

opportunities.

Currently,

theordinanceisadministeredby34countiesandcities,and2towns.TwelveTidewaterlocalitieshave

notadoptedtheordinanceandtheVirginiaMarineResourcesCommission(VMRC)actsasthe

permittingauthorityforthoselocales.

MarineResourcesCommissionadministersapermitprogramdesignedtoregulateencroachmentsin,

on,underorovertheStateownedsubmergedlands.Theselands,alsoknownassubaqueouslands,are

thoselandschannelwardofmeanlowwater,lyingundertidalwatersandthoselandsbelowordinary

highwateronnontidalwaterwaysnotheldprivatelybygrant. Thepermitprogram,asestablishedby

theGeneralAssembly,requiresthattheCommissionshallbeguidedbytheprovisionsofArticleXI,

Section1of

the

Constitution

of

Virginia

and

the

Public

Trust

Doctrine.

The

Commission

is

directed

to

alsoconsidereconomicandecologicaleffectsonmarineandfisheriesresourcesoftheCommonwealth,

tidalwetlands,adjacentandnearbyproperties,waterqualityandsubmergedaquaticvegetation. This

authorityisimplementedthrougharegulatoryprogramthatrequirespermitsforactivitiesimpacting

subaqueouslands. TheVMRCconductspublicinterestreviewsforproposedprojectsandmakesthe

permittingdecisions.

OperatingunderthesamestatelocalprogrammodelastheTidalWetlandsAct,theCoastalPrimary

SandDuneActwaspassedin1980(Va.Code28.21400etseq.). Eightlocalitieswereincludedinthe

1980Act: theCountiesofAccomack,Northampton,Mathews,Lancaster,andNorthumberland;andthe

Cities

of

Virginia

Beach,

Norfolk,

and

Hampton.

According

to

the

legislation,

sand

dunes

and

beaches

providevaluablefunctions:theyserveasprotectivebarriersfromfloodinganderosion;providean

essentialsourceofnaturalsand;provideimportanthabitatforcoastalfauna;andenhancethescenic

andrecreationalattractivenessofVirginia'scoastalarea.ThereachoftheActwassignificantlymodified

duringthe2008SessionoftheGeneralAssembly. Thelistoflocalgovernmentsauthorizedto

administertheActwasexpandedtoincludeallofTidewaterVirginiaasdefinedin28.2100ofthe

VirginiaCode.Currently,16localitiesadministertheAct,withVMRCactingasthepermittingauthority

forbeachandduneprojectsintheremainingjurisdictions.

In1988,theChesapeakeBayPreservationActwaspassed(Va.Code10.12100thru10.12116).The

lawcoversallTidewaterlocalities,andprovidesanoptionforallotherlocalitiesintheCommonwealth

toadopttheprogramaswell. ThepurposeoftheActistoprotectandimprovethewaterqualityofthe

ChesapeakeBay,itstributaries,andotherstatewatersbyminimizingtheeffectsofhumanactivityupon

thesewaters.. Theprogramaddstolocallanduseandotherordinancesestablishingcriteriaforthe

use,developmentandredevelopmentoflandandfurtherestablisheslimitationsonlanduses

permittedwithinResourceProtectionAreas(RPAs). RPAsincludetidalwetlands,tidalshoresanda100

footbufferprotectingthosefeatures.Importantly,shorelineerosionstructuresareapermittedactivity

withintheRPA,providedthedesignofthestructure(s)isbasedonthebesttechnicaladvice.The

3


12/30

comprehensiveplanprovisionsoftheChesapeakeBayPreservationAreaDesignationandManagement

Regulations(Regulations)furtherrequirelocalgovernmentstoestablishandmaintainaninformation

basefromwhichpolicychoicesaremadeaboutfuturelanduseanddevelopmentthatwillprotectthe

qualityofstatewaters. Amongtherequiredinformationareshorelineandstreambankerosion

problems.Consistentwiththeaboveprovisions,manytidewaterlocalgovernmentscurrentlyhavelocal

policieson

shoreline

erosion

issues.

As

another

state

local

program,

the

Department

of

Conservation

andRecreationprovidestechnicalassistancetolocalitiesandperformslocalprogramreviewstoensure

compliancewithBayActrequirements.

Figure1.SchematicofManagementAuthoritiesalongVirginiaTidalShoreline.

ThelandscapeofauthoritiesthatdirectdevelopmentalongtheshorelineinVirginiaisnotlimitedtothe

TidalWetlands

Act,

Coastal

Primary

Sand

Dune

and

Beaches

Act,

Chesapeake

Bay

Preservation

Act

and

Subaqueouslandsmanagement. Amorecompleteviewofthepotentialauthoritiesmakingdecisions

regardingtidalshorelinesisshowninFigure1.Pragmatically,veryfewprojectsrequiredetailedreviews

fromalloftheseentities.Insomecases,apermitissuedbyoneauthoritytriggersanopermitnecessary

findingorexpeditedpermitissuancefromanother.Neverthelessanyprojectmaybereviewedbyall. All

theseprogramsshareacommongeneralgoalofmaintenanceorimprovementoftheenvironmental

conditionalongVirginiasshoresandadjacentwaters.

4


13/30

MissingfromthisFigurearethestateandfederalagenciesthatplayaroleinadvisingtheregulatory

authorities.Theseentitiesinclude:theVirginiaInstituteofMarineSciencewithamandateforgeneral

advisoryserviceandspecificresponsibilitiesundertheTidalWetlandsAct:theVirginiaDepartmentof

GameandInlandFisheries:VirginiasDepartmentofHistoricResources;thefederalNationalResources

ConservationService;theU.S.FishandWildlifeService;andtheNationalMarineFisheriesService.

Manyoftheseshorelinepermit/reviewprocessesarestatelocalprogramsadministeredatthelocal

level. Asaresult,muchofthedecisionmakingresponsibilityfallstolocalgovernments(SeeFigure2).

Figure2.State LocalShorelineManagementinterface

Regulationsandguidanceforeachindividualprogramarepromulgatedbyresponsiblestateagency.

Muchofthisguidanceisintendedtodirectprocessesandprovidecriteriafordecisionmakingbylocal

governments. Almostalloftheguidanceisnarrowlyfocusedandprogramspecific,withlittlespecific

referenceto

coordination

with

other

programs.

There

is

aperception

by

decision

makers,

shoreline

contractorsandthegeneralpublic,thattheguidance,whenconsideredinthewhole,hasgaps,overlaps,

andcanevenbeinterpretedtohaveelementsthatareatcrosspurposestoeachother.

Thelackofintegrationinguidanceforthevariousprogramscananddoesresultininconsistentdecision

outcomeswithinandamonglocalities.Thisvariableoutcomeisalsoaresultofthediversityofstrategies

localgovernmentsusetoimplementthemultipleprograms. Variationamonglocalitiesisfoundin:

5


14/30

Theorderinwhichpermitsorreviewsoccur. Somelocalitieswillroutinelyhearapplicationsfor

wetlandpermitsbeforeconsideringtherelatedCBPApermitsforthesameproject. Others

reversetheprocess,andsomehavenosetprotocolforsequencingconsiderations.

Thecompositionofthehearingauthorityforindividualprograms. AlllocalWetlandsBoards

mustbeeither5or7membercitizenboards,butsomelocalitiesusetheWetlandsBoardasthe

localCBPA

authority

as

well.

Others

have

entirely

different

boards

constituted

for

that

purpose.

OthersmakeCBPAdecisionsadministratively,withcountystaffhandlingthereviewand

permittingdecisions(figure3).

Thesourceandextentofthelocalprogramsupportstaff. Thereisgreatdiversityintheabilityof

localitiestostafftheoperationsoflocalprograms. Somelocalitieshavenodedicatedstaff,with

wetlandsandCBPAprogramssimplytwoofmanyassignmentsforasingleindividual. Others

haveadedicatedstaffmemberforeachprogram,butinsomecasestheyarepartofthesame

localgovernmentdepartmentandinotherstheycomefromentirelyseparatedepartments.

Thevariationinstaffingismostdistinctbetweenurbanandrurallocalities. Rurallocalities

typicallyhavefarfewerresourcestodedicatetoshorelinemanagementprogramsevenwhen

theactivityleveliscomparativelyhigh(figure4).

6

Local

Government

Establisheda

SeparateCBPA

Board

Wetlandand

ChesapeakeBay

BoardMembers

WhomakesChesapeakeBayAct

decisions

Accomack No DifferentAdministration andBoardofZoning

Appeals

Chesapeake Yes Same AdministrationandCBPABoard

Gloucester Yes Same CBPABoard

Hampton Yes Different Zoning

Administrator

and

Chesapeake

Bay

ReviewCommittee(staffandonecitizen)

IsleofWight No DifferentPlanningCommissionandBoardof

Supervisors

JCC Yes Same AdministrationandCBPABoard

Lancaster No Different AdministrationandBoardofSupervisors

Mathews Yes DifferentAdministrationandBoardofZoning

Appeals

NewKent Same Administrationand CBPABoard

NewportNews Yes DifferentAdministrationandBoardofZoning

Appeals

Norfolk

Yes

Different

AdministrationandBoardofZoning

Appeals

Northampton Yes DifferentAdministrationandBoardofZoning

Appeals

Poquoson Yes Different

EnvironmentalDevelopmentPlanReview

Committee(EDPRC)(staffand citizen

Boardand BZA

Westmoreland Yes Different PlanningCommission

York Yes Different AdministrationandCBPABoard

Figure3.TableofWetlandsBoardandChesapeakeBayBoardmembership


15/30

LocalGovernment

ChesapeakeBayActStaff

Department

WetlandsBoardStaff

Department

Samestaff

person(s)

forboth

Accomack

Planning

Building

and

Zoning

No

Chesapeake Planning DevelopmentandPermits,Zoning No

GloucesterEnvironmentalPrograms,Codes

Compliance

EnvironmentalPrograms,Codes

Compliance Yes

HamptonCodesCompliance,Public

Works,Planning CodesCompliance No

IsleofWight PlanningandZoning PlanningandZoning Yes

JamesCityCountyDevelopmentManagement,

EnvironmentalDivision

DevelopmentManagement,

EnvironmentalDivision No

Lancaster PlanningandLandUse PlanningandLandUse Yes

Mathews Dept.ofPlanning&Zoning Dept.ofPlanning&Zoning Yes

NewKentEnvironmentalDivision,

CommunityDevelopment

EnvironmentalDivision,Community

Development Yes

NewportNews DeptofEngineering DeptofEngineering No

Norfolk Planning Planning No

Northampton

Planningand

Zoning

Planning

and

Zoning

Yes

Poquoson


Department/Planningand

others


Department/Planning

some

overlap

Westmoreland SAA LandUseOffice Yes

YorkEnvironmental andDevelopment Services

Environmental and DevelopmentServices No

Figure4.TableofWetlandsBoardandChesapeakeBayBoardmembership

TheCurrentIssuesContractorsandagentsworkinginmultiplelocalitieshaveexpressedfrustrationoverthelackof

uniformity. Theyarefrustratedbytheirinabilitytounderstandandanticipateprogramrequirementsin

eachlocality. Fromtheirperspectivethisalltranslatestocostsintimeandefforttoshepherdaproject

proposalthroughtheentireregulatoryprocess. Anadditionalconcernraisedbytheregulated

community,aswellasadvisoryagenciesistheimpactondecisionconsistencythatarisesfrom

proceduralvariabilityandindependentprogrammaticguidance. Theperceptionisthatthecommon

7


16/30

goalsofthevariousregulatoryprogramsmightbemoreeffectivelypromotedacrossthe

Commonwealthifthereweregreateruniformityinproceduresandmoresubstantiveintegrationof

guidancefortheindividualprograms.

OtherStatesShorelineManagementProgramsThetidalshorelinemanagementprogramsinMassachusetts,MarylandandNorthCarolinawere

reviewedindetailtoassessthestructureoftheirshorelinemanagementprogramsandtoidentify

potentialmodelsforuseinVirginia.MarylandandNorthCarolinawerechosenasneighboringstates

withsimilartypesofshorelines. Massachusettswaschosenbecause,likeVirginia,privateproperty

ownershipextendstomeanlowwater. Otherstateprogramswerereviewedforspecificelementsof

interesttothisreportincludingstrategiesforsustainingshorelineresourcesanduseoflivingshoreline

designs.

Therelative

complexity

of

multi

jurisdictional

shoreline

management

is

not

unique

to

Virginia.

Other

states,particularlyMassachusetts,havecomparablelocal,stateandfederalagenciesadministering

differentlegislativeprogramseffectingshorelineresources.

MassachusettsAnalogoustoVirginiasWetlandsBoards,Massachusettshasvolunteercitizenconservation

commissions. CommissionsworkintandemwiththestateDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection

(DEP). ThestateagencypromulgatesregulationsundertheWetlandsProtectionAct(WPA)andactsas

theappellatebodyforcommissiondecisions. Massachusettscommissionsfunctionwithabroader

scopeof

activities

(they

can

hire

staff

and

acquire

and

hold

land

for

conservation

purposes)

than

Virginiaslocalboards. Thecommissionsalsoappeartooperateunderamoredefinitiveguidancefor

decisionmakingthatVirginiaprovidesitslocalboards. Thetermsofpermitreviewanddecisionsare

largelyprescribedbytheWPA,DEPregulationsandpolicies,andcourtdecisions. Incomparison,

Virginialocalboardsaregivenbroadlatitudetodrawtheirconclusionsonevidencepresentedtothem.

ReviewingwetlandpermittinginMassachusetts,Payne(1998)concludedthatthelocalgovernanceof

naturalresourceswaseffective,efficient,andfairinlargepartbecauseitoperateswithinaprescriptive

stateframework.Thisfacilitatesthebalanceofstrongprivateinterestswhicharefundamentallyatodds

withcertainpublicinterests. BrownandVeneman(2001)claimMassachusettshasoneofthestrictest

regulationprogramsintheU.S.(.ThisassertionispartiallybasedonMassachusettscommitmentto

achieveno

net

loss

of

wetlands

through

full

compensation

for

all

wetland

impacts

NorthCarolinaNorthCarolinahasamultijurisdictionalshorelinemanagementprocesswiththeDepartmentof

EnvironmentandNaturalResourcesDivisionsofWaterQualityandCoastalManagementasthestate

leadagenciesandtheCoastalResourcesCommissionastheregulatoryauthoritypromulgatingrulesfor

8


17/30

theCoastalAreaManagementActandtheDredgeandFillAct.Whilemanagementoftidalwetlandsis

largelyadministeredatthestatelevel,otherenvironmentalprograms,suchaserosionandsediment

control,andstormwatermanagementareimplementedatthelocallevelthroughstatedelegated

authority. NorthCarolinasshorelinemanagementconstructhassomewhatfewerdecisionmaking

authoritiesthanVirginias.

EfficiencyinNorthCarolinasprogramarisesnotonlyfromcentralizedpermitting,butalsothroughuse

ofgeneralpermitsforroutinedevelopmentactivities. Formanyyearsthestatehashadgeneralpermits

forshorelinerevetmentsandbulkheads,allowingpropertyownerstoproceedwithaprojectaslongas

itmetcertainspecifications. Thisapproachhadtheunintendedconsequenceofmakingitrelativelyeasy

togetapermitforprojectswenowunderstandnegativelyimpactthelongtermfunctioningofshoreline

systems. In2003,theNorthCarolinalegislatureaddressedthisissuebyauthorizingageneralpermitfor

livingshorelines. Thesealternativedesignsforshorelinestabilizationincorporatetheobjectiveof

retaining,andinsomecasesenhancingthecapacityoftheshorelinesystemtoprovidebeneficialhabitat

andwaterqualityserviceswhilesimultaneouslyreducingtherisksoferosion. Theintentwastoreplace

animplied

preference

for

hardened

shorelines

with

apolicy

preference

for

more

natural

and

sustainable

shorelinemanagementpractices.

MarylandMarylandshorelinemanagementissimilartoNorthCarolinainthatthepermittingresponsibilityfor

tidalwetlandsfallstostateagencies. Managementoftheriparianbufferisaccomplishedin astate

localprogramsimilartoVirginiasapproachundertheChesapeakeBayPreservationAct. InMaryland

buffersareprotectedbytheCriticalAreaAct. TheActestablishedastatelevelCriticalAreaCommission.

TheCommissiondevelopedcriteriaforlocaljurisdictiondevelopmentofindividualCriticalArea

programswhich

entail

amendments

to

local

comprehensive

plans,

zoning

ordinances,

and

subdivision

regulations.

MarylandpassedtheLivingShorelineProtectionActin2008.Theactrequirestheuseofnonstructural

erosionprotectionunlesstheownercandemonstratetheneedforamoreconventionalshoreline

hardeningapproach. RegulationshaveyettobeapprovedtoimplementtheAct.Theproposed

regulationshavebeenthroughseveralformalpublicreviews. Difficultieshaveariseningetting

agreementsoncertaindefinitionsandunderwhatcircumstancesistheneedforaconventional

shorelinehardeningapproachvalid.

PotentialCostandTimeSavingsShorelinemanagementinVirginiainvolvesmanydecisionmakerswithcompatible,albeitslightly

differentresourcemanagementobjectives,permitrequirements,andprocessingtimelines. Makingthe

permittingprocessasefficientaspossibleisanobjectiveofboththeregulatorsandtheregulated

community. Thebenefitswillaccruetoallpartiesintermsofreducedcosts. Anannualreviewofpermit

9


18/30

costinVirginiaindicatesthefeesforapermitrangebetween55$and675$withanaveragecostof

255$.AnecdotalinformationfromlocalgovernmentsaswellasVMRCindicatesthatthepermitfeesdo

notcoverthecostinresourceandstafftimespentonthetypicalprojectreview. Asaresultthereis

significantmotivationtoachievenewlevelsofefficiency.

Opportunitiesto

reduce

cost

and

time

associated

with

shoreline

management

programs

lie

mostly

in

providingamorepredictable,transparentprocess. Improvedcoordinationamongmanagement

agenciescanachievetimeandcostsavingwhileatthesametimeimprovingtheintegrationofthe

decisions. Savingscanalsobepromotedbyaddressinggapsandoverlapsinthecollectionofprogram

regulationandguidancethatimpactpermittingdecisions. Integratedguidancecanbedevelopedto

coordinateallprogrammaticinterestsandpromoteeffectiveshorelinemanagement. Theguidance

shouldidentifypreferredmanagementoptionsforallthevariousshorelinesystemsfoundinVirginia.

Theguidancecanprovidetransparencyinpermitdecisionsfortheregulatedcommunitybyarticulating

criteriaforprojectreviewandapproval.

Integratedguidancecanmakeuseofdecisionmakingflowchartssuchastheshorelinemanagement

decisiontreescurrentlyunderdevelopmentatCCRM/VIMS. Thesetoolsidentifythekeyfactorsleading

toarecommendedmanagementdecision. Theyalsocodifyamanagementpreferencethatpromotes

sustainabilityoftidalshorelineresourcesthroughtheuseofnaturalhabitatstoabateerosion.

Animportantstepinthedevelopmentofunifiedguidanceformanagementoftidalshorelinesystems

willbeidentificationofallthepotentialconflictsamongthevariousprogramregulationsandguidelines.

Inordertobeeffectiveandefficient,anyconflicts,whethergapsorcrosspurposedecisionmaking,will

needtobeaddressed.

10


19/30

11

Figure5.DecisiontreeforundefendedShorelines(Seehttp://ccrm.vims.edu/decisiontree/index.html)
http://ccrm.vims.edu/decisiontree/index.htmlhttp://ccrm.vims.edu/decisiontree/index.html


20/30

Recommendations

Virginiashoulddevelopintegratedguidanceformanagementoftidalshorelinesystems. Theguidance

shouldidentifypreferredshorelinemanagementapproachesfortheshorelinetypesfoundinVirginia.

Tothe

extent

possible

it

should

identify

and

explain

the

trade

offs

in

protection

of

various

shoreline

systemelementsassociatedwitheachmanagementoption.Theobjectiveistoprovideasound

technicalbasisforcoordinationofallthepermitdecisionsrequiredbyanyshorelinemanagement

project. TheintentshouldbeforallregulatoryauthoritieswithpurviewoveractivitiesalongVirginias

tidalshorelinestousetheguidancetoachievegreatercollectiveefficiencyandeffectivenessin

managementoftheCommonwealthsresources.Developmentoftheguidanceshouldbeacooperative

effortinvolvingtheDepartmentofConversationandRecreation,theVirginiaMarineResources

Commission,andtheVirginiaInstituteofMarineScience.

Astudytoidentifyandassessanypotentialregulatoryissuesassociatedwithdevelopmentand

implementation

of

integrated

guidance

for

tidal

shoreline

management

should

be

conducted.

IdentifyRegulatoryInnovationstoPromoteLivingShorelinesLivingshorelinesarecreatedorenhancedshorelinesthatmakethebestuseofnaturesabilitytoabate

shorelineerosionwhilemaintainingorimprovinghabitatandwaterquality. Livingshorelinetreatments

addresserosionbyprovidinglongtermprotection,restorationorenhancementofvegetatedshoreline

habitatsthroughstrategicplacementofplants,stone,sandfillandotherstructuralororganicmaterials

(Foraindepthlookatlivingshorelinesecosystembenefits,design/buildinformation,andphotographic

examples,seethe CenterforCoastalResourcesManagementLivingShorelineswebsiteat:

http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/).

Applicationoflivingshorelinedesignshasbecomeawidelyacceptedandpreferredstrategyfortidal

shorelinemanagement. Becausetheyentailasystemlevelapproach,livingshorelinetreatments

reflectthebestunderstandingofhowshorelinesystemswork,andhowthebenefitstheyprovidecanbe

sustained. Forthesereasons,promotingtheuseoflivingshorelinesisseenasdesirablebyresource

managersandscientificadvisorsacrossthenation.

InVirginia,eachoftheregulatoryprogramsmanagingshoreresourcestendstoseekavoidanceof

impactsinareasundertheirjurisdiction.Thispreferenceforthestatusquocanbeinconflictwithliving

shorelinedesigns.

Whilenotalllivingshorelinedesignsareidentical,creatingthenecessaryconditionscaninvolve:

gradingtheriparianarea,disruptingorremovingthenaturalvegetationandtheassociated

pollutantremovalcapacity,andcreatingaconflictwithlocalBayActcoderequirements;or

movingdesignelementschannelwardtopreserveanexistingvegetatedriparianarea,

impactingwetlandsandcreatingaconflictwithwetlandsguidelines;or

12
http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/


21/30

fillingnearshorewaterstocreateintertidalwetlands,creatingsignificantconflictswith

subaqueouslandguidelines.

Theconsequenceisthatinorderforalivingshorelinedesigntobeimplemented,oneormoreofthe

agenciesinvolvedinshorelinemanagementmayhavetoacceptimpactswithintargetedresources.This

meanssuccessful

promotion

of

living

shorelines

will

require

cooperative

efforts

by

the

regulatory

and

advisoryauthorities.Developmentandimplementationofintegratedguidancethatcoordinatesthese

programmaticinterestswouldbeanecessarycomponent.

TherearemanyoptionsforpromotionoflivingshorelinesinVirginia. Theserangefromlegaland

regulatoryrequirementstopubliceducation. Havenset.al.(2006)identifiedanumberofincentives

thatmightbeconsideredinVirginia. Theyinclude:

General/StreamlinedPermits

PermitFeeWaivers

CompensationWaivers

SubaqueousRoyaltyWaivers

TaxAssessmentReduction

CostShare

LowImpactDevelopmentCredit

SubdivisionOrdinanceAddition

SomeoftheseoptionsarealreadyinpracticeinotherstatesandVirginia.Table1identifiesanumberof

theoptionsandstatesusingordevelopingthem.

Theoptionstopromotelivingshorelinesgenerallyfallintotwocategories:financialandpermitting

relief.

Financialincentives

can

involve

waiver

of

permit

costs

or

cost

share

for

project

design

and

construction.CostshareprogramswereparticularlyeffectiveinMarylandandmanyoftheprojectson

thegroundwerebuiltwithsomefundingsupport. Fundingfortheseprogramshaschanged

dramatically,however. Thecostshareisnolongeravailable,althoughthereisstillfundingforzero

interestloans.

Currently,opportunitiesforfinancialassistanceinVirginiaarelimited. AccordingtoDavisandLuscher

(2008),twoprogramsthatmightprovidesomesupportinVirginiainclude:theLivingShorelines

InitiativeadministeredbytheChesapeakeBayTrustwithNationalOceanicandAtmospheric

AdministrationRestorationCenter,CampbellFoundation,andNationalFishandWildlife(NFWF)

partners:

and

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Small

Watersheds

Program

administered

by

the

NFWF.

Both

of

these

programsrequireindividualprivatepropertyownerstopartnerwithanonprofitorganization.

TherearemanyfinancialincentiveoptionsthatcouldbesuccessfulinVirginia.However,manyofthe

optionsfunctionallyreducefeesorrevenueswhichoftenhelpoffsetthecostofregulatorypermit

programs. Theseoptionswouldpotentiallycreateafiscalissueforagencies.

13


22/30

Permitreliefintheformofexemptions,generalpermits,orpermitpreferenceseemstobeaviable

option. PermittingpreferenceisalreadyinuseinFairfaxCounty,Virginia.Thisapproachrequiresthe

applicanttodemonstratethatalivingshorelineprojectwillnotaccomplishthedesirederosion

protectiongoaliftheyproposesomeotherprojectdesign. Essentiallythelivingshorelinedesignis

assumedtotheappropriatechoiceabsentacompellingargumenttothecontrary.

NorthCarolinaissuccessfullyoperatingageneralpermitprogramforstructuresplacedtoprotect

existing,ornewlyconstructed,vegetatedwetlands.Thegeneralpermitlanguageprovideswelldefined

criteriatomeettheconditionsofthepermit.Thisenablesanefficientreviewoftheapplicationtoverify

ifthepermitcriteriahavebeenmet. Ifthecriteriaaresatisfied,theprojectispresumedtosatisfythe

publicinterestreview,andapprovalisexpedited.

Permittingreliefisanoptionwhichifproperlycrafted,offerstimeandcostsavingstopropertyowners

andpermittingauthorities.Dependingupontheformthatsuchreliefmighttake,regulatoryor

legislativeactionisprobablynecessary.

Virginiadoes

not

have

an

official

position

on

the

use

of

living

shorelines

for

erosion

protection.

A

statementofpolicythatidentifiesapreferencefortheuseofexistingorenhancednaturalshoreline

habitatsforerosionprotectionwouldproviderecognitionthatlivingshorelinedesignsareadesirable

approachformanyoftheCommonwealthstidalareas.

14


23/30

Options toPromoteLivingShorelines

Approach State(s)usingApproach Implementation/Authority

StateLegislative

Requirement

Maryland1

LivingShorelineProtectionAct

2008

StateRegulationtoprefer

naturalshorelinesforerosion

control Alabama

AlabamaDepartmentof

EnvironmentalManagement

GeneralPermit NorthCarolina1,2N.C.DivisionofCoastal

Management

Exemptionfromstatepermit NorthwestFlorida

DepartmentofEnvironmental

ProtectionNorthwestFlorida

Design

Assistance

Maryland

MarylandDepartmentofthe

Environment

(MDE)

Costshare/lownointerestloans

NorthCarolina,Texas,

Maryland2NCCoastalFederation,various

Texasentities,MDE

WaterQualityRevolvingLoan

Nonpointsedimentcontrol proposedMaryland3

MarylandWaterQualityFinancing

Administration(MWQFA),aunit

withinMDE

Permitfeewaiver Maryland

MarylandDepartmentofthe

Environment

TaxIncentives Oregon,Virginia

OregonDepartmentofFishand

Wildlife,VirginiaLocalities

Permittingpreference FairfaxCounty,Virginia

FairfaxCountyWetlandsBoard,

DepartmentofPlanningand

Zoning

Figure6.OptionstoPromoteLivingShorelines

Alabamahttp://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord2204.pdf

Maryland1.http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/chapters_noln/Ch_304_hb0973E.pdf

2.http://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix41408.pdf

3.http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdf

NorthCarolina

1General

Permit:

http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20

%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdf

2.Legislation:http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2003/Bills/House/HTML/H1028v8.htmlFloridahttps://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62346.051

Oregonhttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/tax_overview.asp

Virginia58.13666.http://lis.virginia.gov/cgibin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.13666FairfaxCounty,Virginiahttp://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/environment/finallivingshoreline.pdf

15
http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord220-4.pdfhttp://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord220-4.pdfhttp://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord220-4.pdfhttp://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord220-4.pdfhttp://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/chapters_noln/Ch_304_hb0973E.pdfhttp://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/chapters_noln/Ch_304_hb0973E.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdfhttp://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdfhttp://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdfhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2003/Bills/House/HTML/H1028v8.htmlhttp://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2003/Bills/House/HTML/H1028v8.htmlhttps://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62-346.051https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62-346.051https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62-346.051https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62-346.051http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/tax_overview.asphttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/tax_overview.asphttp://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/environment/finallivingshoreline.pdfhttp://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/environment/finallivingshoreline.pdfhttp://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/environment/finallivingshoreline.pdfhttp://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+58.1-3666http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/tax_overview.asphttp://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/tax_overview.asphttps://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62-346.051https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=Environmental%20Resource%20Permitting%20in%20Northwest%20Florida&ID=62-346.051http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2003/Bills/House/HTML/H1028v8.htmlhttp://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2003/Bills/House/HTML/H1028v8.htmlhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Hazards/7H%20Section%202400%20-%20approved%20for%20public%20hearing%2020080328.pdfhttp://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdfhttp://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdfhttp://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/QualityFinancing/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/CW%20DW%20draft%20IPPS/CW%20IPPS_100810_PC%20Draft.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://www.dnr.state.md.us/ccws/sec/download/SECFinancialAssistanceMatrix4-14-08.pdfhttp://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/chapters_noln/Ch_304_hb0973E.pdfhttp://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/chapters_noln/Ch_304_hb0973E.pdfhttp://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord220-4.pdfhttp://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/McWord220-4.pdf


24/30

Recommendations

Virginiashouldofficiallyidentifyapreferenceforlivingshorelinedesignsasamanagementstrategyfor

tidalshorelinesystems. Thepolicycouldbearticulatedintheformoflegislation,executiveorder,or

regulation.

However,

a

regulatory

preference

promulgated

by

one

agency

does

not

guarantee

the

same

forothermanagemententities. Thismight,therefore,fallshortofestablishingaunifyingfocusfor

regulatoryprogramsthatcouldimproveefficiencyandeffectivenessoftheCommonwealthsshoreline

managementefforts. Forthisreason,alegislativeorexecutiveactionwouldbepreferable.

Virginiashoulddevelopandimplementageneralpermitforlivingshorelines.Thepermitdevelopment

processshouldinvolvetheDepartmentofConversationandRecreation,theVirginiaMarineResources

Commission,andtheVirginiaInstituteofMarineScience,withtechnicalassistancefromothershoreline

managemententitiesasnecessary.TheprocessshouldbecoordinatedwiththeU.S.ArmyCorpsof

Engineerstoavoidconflictswiththeirpermittingrequirements. TheCorpsmakesregularuseof

generalizedpermitsinVirginia,asregionalandnationwidepermits,andprovidesonemodelfor

developmentofthegeneralpermit.Virginiaalreadyhasonegeneralpermitinplaceforemergency

activitiesintidalwetlands,andseveralothersforactivitiesinsubaqueouslands.

RecommendationstoAchieveSustainedProtectionofTidalShorelineResourcesNaturalandhumanpressuresonshorelineresourcesaregreat.Thesepressuresinclude;theeffectsof

shorelinehardening,lossesduetoerosionandlandconversionandmarshdrowningfromrelativesea

levelrise.

Current

trends

suggest

tidal

marshes

will

not

be

able

to

maintain

themselves

at

present

and

projectedfutureratesofsealevelrise.Infact,estimatesoftidalwetland,beachandriparianlandlossin

Virginiaduetosealevelriseareinthethousandstotensofthousandsofacres(NWF2008).Assuch,the

sustainabilityoftidalandriparianshorelineresourceswilllargelydependuponthecapacityofthe

resourcestomovelandward.InVirginia,thiscapacityisincreasinglyatrisk. Inarecentstudyconducted

byVIMS,developmentwasestimatedtocoverabout27%oftidalshorelines,andabout500milesof

Virginiasshorelinesarenowhardened.

MaintainingthecapacityofVirginiastidalshorelineresourcestoprovidevaluableserviceswillrequire

planningtoaccommodatetheirneedtomigrateonthelandscape. Plansofthissortwouldbe

necessarilycomprehensive

allowing

for

both

well

informed

permit

decision

making

in

the

moment

as

wellasfutureplanning.

OneapproachtocomprehensiveshorelineplansisunderdevelopmentattheCenterforCoastal

ResourcesManagementatVIMS.Thisapproachcreatesplansatthescaleofindividuallocalities. Local

conditionsareinventoried,riskstobothnaturalandhumanresourcesareassessed,preferredshoreline

managementstrategiesareidentified,andopportunitiestoprovideforfutureshorelineresourcesare

delineated.ChesapeakeBayActlocalitiesarerequiredtoaddressshorelineerosionintheirlocal

16


25/30

comprehensiveplansanddevelopmentofshorelineplansbythestatecouldbereadilyincorporatedto

meetthatrequirement.

WashingtonStatehasaprogramofcomprehensiveshoreline.TheShorelineManagementAct(RCW

90.58)waspassedin1971topreventtheinherentharminanuncoordinatedandpiecemeal

developmentof

the

states

shorelines.

The

Act

applies

to

tidal

shorelines

and

adjoining

lands

extending

about200feetlandwardoftheshore.StateguidelinespromulgatedbytheWashingtonDepartmentof

Ecologyassistlocalgovernmentsindeveloping,adopting,andamendingmasterprogramsthatare

consistentwiththepolicyandprovisionsoftheact.TheActrequireslocalgovernmentstohave

shorelinemasterprogramsthatgovernarmoringandothershorelineactivities(See

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/index.html).

PreservationofVirginiastidalshorelineresourceswillrequiresimilarproactiveefforts.

Recommendation

VirginiashouldadvancetheeffortscurrentlyunderwayatVIMStodevelopandpromulgate

comprehensivecoastal

resource

management

plans

for

all

Tidewater

localities.

The

plans

should

be

specificallydesignedtosupportintegratedmanagementofcurrenttidalshorelineresourcesaddressing

shorelineerosionrequirementsforlocalcomprehensiveplans,andshouldalsoprovideinformationto

supportlocalplanningeffortstoadapttochangingconditionsinthecoastalzone,includingsealevel

rise.

Virginiashouldpromotetheeducationofbothpublicofficialsandthegeneralpublicregardingtheneed

forintegratedshorelinemanagement. Successinmanagingtheriskstobothhumanandnatural

resourceswillrequirebothregulatorsandtheregulatedcommunitytounderstandtheissuesandadjust

expectationsforwhatispossibleandwhatisappropriatealongVirginiasshorelines.

17
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/index.htmlhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/index.html


26/30

AcronymsCBPA ChesapeakeBayPreservationAct

CCRM CenterforCoastalResourcesManagement

Corps UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers

E&S ErosionandSedimentControl

DCR DepartmentofConversationandRecreation Virginia

DCR CBLA DepartmentofConversationandRecreation,ChesapeakeBayLocalAssistance Virginia

DCR SWC DepartmentofConversationandRecreation,SoilandWaterConservation Virginia

DEP DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection Massachusetts

MDE MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment

NRCS NaturalResourcesConservationService

NPS NonPointSourcePollution

NWF

NationalWildlife

Federation

VDEQ/DEQ VirginiaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality

VMRC VirginiaMarineResourcesCommission

VIMS VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience

WB WetlandsBoard Virginia

WPA WetlandsProtectionAct Massachusetts

18


27/30

CitationsBilkovic,D.M.,andM.Roggero.2008.Effectsofcoastaldevelopmentonnearshoreestuarinenekton

communities.MarineEcologyProgressSeries358:2739.

Brown,S.C.andP.L.M.Veneman.2001.Effectivenessofcompensatorywetlandmitigationin

Massachusetts,USA.WETLANDS21(4):508518.

Davis,J.L.D.andA.E.Luscher.2008.IncentivestoPromoteLivingShorelineTechniquesinthe

ChesapeakeBay,pgs.111116.In:Management,Policy,Science,andEngineeringofNonstructuralErosionControlintheChesapeakeBay:Proceedingsofthe2006LivingShorelineSummit. Erdle,S.Y,J.L.D.Davis,andK.G.Sellner,eds.CRCPubl.No.08164

DeLuca,W.V.,C.E.Studds,L.L.Rockwood,andP.P.Marra.2004.Influenceoflanduseontheintegrityof

marshbirdcommunitiesoftheChesapeakeBay,USA.Wetlands24:837847.

Duhring,Karen.AnnualSummaryofPermittedTidalWetlandImpacts2003.TheVirginiaWetlands

Report. VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience,CollegeofWilliamandMary,GloucesterPt.,VA.Spring

2004Vol.19,No.1.http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/publications_topics/vwr/VWR2004Spring.pdf

Focusonlivingshorelines:StateregulationsinAlabama,MississippiandFlorida.2007.Mississippi

AlabamaSeaGrant.MASGP07027.

http://d276864.h39.zeehosting.com/pdf/masgp/07027.pdf

Havens,K.,

C.

Hershner

and

P.

Mason.

2006.

Living

Shorelines.

Rivers

and

Coast

Newsletter.

Vol.1(no.2).

VirginiaInstituteofMarineScience,CenterforCoastalResourcesManagement,GloucesterPoint,VA

King,R.S.,A.H.Hines,F.D.CraigeandS.Grap.2005.Regional,watershedandlocalcorrelatesofblue

crabandbivalveabundancesinsubestuariesofChesapeakeBay,USA.JournalofExperimentalMarine

BiologyandEcology319:101116

Lerberg,S.B.,A.F.Holland,andD.M.Sanger.2000.Responsesoftidalcreekmacrobenthiccommunities

totheeffectsofwatersheddevelopment.Estuaries23:838853.

NationalWildlifeFederation.2008.SeaLevelRiseandCoastalHabitatsoftheChesapeakeBay:A

Summary.

http://cf.nwf.org/sealevelrise/pdfs/nwf_chesapeakereportfinal.pdf

Payne,C.1998.Localregulationofnaturalresources:efficiency,effectivenessandfairnessofwetlands

permittinginMassachusetts.EnvironmentalLawVol.28.

Seitz,R.D.,R.N.Lipcius,N.H.Olmstead,M.S.Seebo,andD.M.Lambert.2006.Influenceofshallowwater

habitatsandshorelinedevelopmentuponabundance,biomass,anddiversityofbenthicpreyand

predatorsinChesapeakeBay.MarineEcologyProgressSeries326:1127.

19
http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/publications_topics/vwr/VWR2004Spring.pdfhttp://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/publications_topics/vwr/VWR2004Spring.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://cf.nwf.org/sealevelrise/pdfs/nwf_chesapeakereportfinal.pdfhttp://cf.nwf.org/sealevelrise/pdfs/nwf_chesapeakereportfinal.pdfhttp://cf.nwf.org/sealevelrise/pdfs/nwf_chesapeakereportfinal.pdfhttp://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/pdf/masgp/07-027.pdfhttp://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/publications_topics/vwr/VWR2004Spring.pdf


28/30

20

Stedman,S.andT.E.Dahl.2008.StatusandtrendsofwetlandsinthecoastalwatershedsoftheEastern

UnitedStates1998to2004.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarine

FisheriesServiceandU.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService.(32pages)


29/30


30/30