Tidal Shoreline Management Study
-
Upload
asoundidea -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
2/30
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
CommunityDevelopment
Department/Planningand
others
CommunityDevelopment
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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 -
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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/ -
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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 -
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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 -
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
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 -
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
28/30
20
Stedman,S.andT.E.Dahl.2008.StatusandtrendsofwetlandsinthecoastalwatershedsoftheEastern
UnitedStates1998to2004.NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration,NationalMarine
FisheriesServiceandU.S.DepartmentoftheInterior,FishandWildlifeService.(32pages)
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
29/30
-
8/8/2019 Tidal Shoreline Management Study
30/30