Virginia Marine Resources Commission Enforcement Procedures and Considerations Relative to Chapter 811 Acts of Assembly

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

. . ....... .... ..........
............
him-
-..dd
bf I. ...........
................
. ....... .
...............
VIRGINIA
.... ..............

.... . . . .
..... .. ..
.. .............
.. . .... . ...
...................
ion
-IJ Cn
"ahd -Conside" ations
Enforcement kioco@du'res, r
Relative to Cha'tei,811 Act 'of Asgembly
"tp,
Ch*akes'R. &adl

a strong deterrent to violating the law and a power-
ful incentive for resolving the matter at an adminis-
Introduction trative level. In that regard, Section 62.1-13.18:2
grants the Commission and wetlands boards the
Recent changes in legislation altering enforce- authority to assess civil charges of up to $10,000
ment authority under Title 62.1 present an excellent per violation. Civil charges are to be paid in lieu of
opportunity for a review of enforcement proce- any appropriate civil penalty and can be assessed
dures as well as a chance to highlight the changes only with the consent of the person in violation.
that resulted from these additions to the law. This The obvious intent of both civil penalties and
review is designed to be used as an enforcement charges is to provide financial disincentives against
guide to aid in interpreting the changes and should violating the law while at the same time providing
not take the place of advice from knowledgeable the impetus to resolve these issues at an administra-
counsel. tive level. A $10,000 civil charge may seem ex-
All of the amendments and additions included treme but when compared to perhaps a $500,000
in Chapter 8il Acts of Assembly 1990 (Senate Bill civil penalty ($25,000 x each day of the violation,
183) as found in Attachment A, are contained in Ti- 20 days in this example) the more cost effective so-
tle 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and affect the regu- lution remains at the administrative level. It should
lation of subaqueous lands, tidal wetlands and be noted, however, that civil charges may be in ad-
coastal primary sand dunes, Chapters 1, 2.1 and 2.2, dition to the cost of any restoration ordered under
respectively. Specifically, those amendments pro- Section 62.1-13.16:I(C).
vide the Commission with the authority to adopt The adoption of financial disincentives not only
regulations, and the Commission or local wetlands commands the attention of those parties involved in
board with the authority to issue restoration orders coastal development but also those responsible for
and assess civil charges for violations of the applica- administering Virginia's coastal law. Enforcement
ble statutes. These amendments became effective
on July 1, 1990.
In the past, violations of the aforementioned ---------------
Code sections usually resulted in either voluntary ....... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
restoration or more frequently, submittal of an after-
........ ...... X.
........ ----------
the-fact application for a permit. Violators were usu-
........ ....
ally asked to appear before the Commission or
..... ....... .
........... .........
..............
wetlands board and reprimanded for their actions
. . . . . . . . . .
with the intent of producing a lasting impression ......... ................
.............
...........
through public admonishment. The prospect of
. . . . . . . . . . . .............. .
sem
prosecution within the judicial system was pre- I NO
S U.
viously and remains a viable option. Unfortunately,

. ...........
the inherent problems associated with preparing a
case to go to Circuit Court remained unchanged.
. . .........
The difference now is that once in Circuit Court, a
. ..........
... .. ........
judge can levy a civil penalty up to $25,000 for
. ........
each day of a violation. This hopefully will serve as .......... .
.......... ....

This report was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through
grant # NA90AA-H-CZ796 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 amended.

procedures within Virginia's 34 wetland boards has proach is intended to be only a guide and is not a
in the past reflected the varying degrees of complex- substitute for a more comprehensive review and un-
ity found in each local government. Unifying these derstanding of individual Code sections. A discus-
procedures to conform to rigid standards is perhaps sion of each of these components combined with
not desirable but a review of the basic enforcement relevant reporting requirements will hopefully solid-
components does provide a basis from which locali- ify the enforcement procedure within the context of
ties can refine an enforcement mechanism which is your individual needs.
legally complete and reflects the unique character Report of a violation (Step 1), either through
of each locality. citizen response or staff awareness, immediately
calls into question the test of imminent danger and
Enforcement significant harm. If the potential violation appears
to involve substantial impact to natural resources
Figure 1 - Enforcement Procedures, represents and further delay could lead to increased despolia-
an overall generalized outline of the enforcement tion, it may be necessary to forgo standard notifica-
components incorporated into Title 62.1 of the tion requirements and serve a Stop Work Order as
Code. Because different Code sections embody dif- specified in Section 62.1-13.16:1(B). Otherwise,
ferent enforcement components, this unified ap- standard operating procedures dictate that prior to
inspection, notice shall be provided to the resident
owner, occupier, or operator (Step 2). If notice is
Figure 1 - Enforcement Procedures given verbally, it should be followed with written
correspondence. The individual(s) involved should
be given an opportunity to accompany the site in-
Violation step I spector during their inspection (Step 3).
If it is determined there is failure to comply
imminent Danger or No with a permit or that unauthorized activities have
Si * cant "--- transpired, a Sworn Complaint (Step 4, Attachment
Step 2 Notice B) from the designated enforcement officer should
be completed and presented to the board chairman.
1 3 I-p-tion Upon receipt of a Sworn Complaint, the board
chairman issues a Notice to Comply (Step 5, Attach-
ment C), indicating the measures needed for compli-
IN Violation ance and a specified time within which such
Unauthorized Actiity measures shall be completed. Non-compliance can
also result in the issuance of a Stop Work Order (At-
Step 4 Sworn Complaint Stop Work tachment E) from the board chairman. The affect of
Order
a Stop Work Order is directly related to the desired
outcome of any given situation. A Stop Work Order
Notice to Comply Sup 5 is usually viewed administratively as an "attention
getter" designed to reinforce the need for compli-
Step 6 ance with the law. As such, Stop Work Orders can
be issued in conjunction with the Notice to Comply.
PermilModifi ion In the absence of compliance, the Stop Work Order
Permit Application serves as the precursor to application for appropri-
Show Cause Step 7 ate relief to a Circuit Court in the jurisdiction
Voluntary Restoration Step8 Hearing I
andlor wherein the violation was alleged to have occurred.
Restoration Hearing The Sworn Compliant is an important compo-
Restoration Order nent of the violation procedure. While not required
-f i I A@Charg- under Section 62.1-13.16:1(A), the Sworn Com-
plaint is an integral part of the enforcement proceed-
Step 10 ing under Sections 62.1-13.16: 1 (B), and (C). In
fact, the Sworn Complaint is required as a precursor
Non-compliance Circuit Court to the issuance of a Stop Work Order or a Restora-
S p
te '
tS,.p 2
SIV 34
V4 Una
@u&orizedA i,4ty

Ci%41 Penalties? tion Order. Care should also be taken at this time to
completely document and photograph the violation
(Step 6). Ile violation worksheet (Attachment D)

contains pertinent questions which should be an- Restoration
swered and may be helpful to ensure that all neces-
sary information is obtained. Section 62.1-13.16: I(C) provides the boards
Compliance can reasonably involve one of two with additional remedies under the law in the form
separate approaches. In one instance the Board can of a Restoration Order. A general fonnat for this or-
request the property owner appear before the Board der is contained in Attachment F. The restoration or-
during the next regularly scheduled hearing and der should not be considered a position of last
show cause why he or she is not in violation (Step resort. In cases where restoration is a desirable out-
7). The show cause hearing allows the Board mem- come, a Notice to Comply with voluntary restora-
bers an opportunity to bring forth and put to record tion may preclude a formal restoration hearing.
pertinent facts. On the other hand, the Board might A restoration hearing is appropriate in those in-
also recognize the project was not constructed in a stances where substantial damage to resources, be-
fashion which warrants removal. In such a case the yond that which would normally have been
Board could move to accept an application and per- permitted, has occurred. Even in instances where
mit a project with the appropriate application of voluntary restoration is deemed a viable alternative,
civil charges (Step 9 & 10). the restoration order may be useful in specifying
In the former example, a Notice to Comply the details necessary to ensure an effective restora-
would request the party responsible for the viola- tion effort.
tion to cease the activity and for the owner to ap- A restoration order results from the issuance of
pear before the Board to show cause at a specified a Sworn Complaint along with the provision of the
date and time. It should be understood, however, necessary 30 day notice to the affected party includ-
that the show cause hearing is not the public inter- ing the time, place and purpose of the restoration
est review. Rather, it is merely a fact finding ses- hearing. Such an order should require the submis-
sion. At it's conclusion, the Board must decide sion of a complete restoration monitoring plan to en-
which path is most reasonable. A move toward im- sure successful re-establishment of the affected
mediate restoration could be viewed as depriving resources (see Restoration Under Title 62.1 of the
the property owner of due process and a full public Code of Virginia, Attachment F). In general, these
interest review under the law. This approach stems plans define project details and formalize the per-
from Petzinger vs. VMRC 1980. In this proceeding, formance standards by which the restored area will
VMRC, on advice from counsel, vacated it's own be evaluated over the long term. The restoration or-
order to restore and allowed the appellant@ Freder- der n= also require a prepaid contract acceptable
ick J. Petzinger, III the opportunity to apply for an to the board be in affect for the purpose of carrying
after-the-fact permit. In this case, the appellant had out the Monitoring Plan. In addition, the board
knowingly installed a number of mooring pilings in ma,.x require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in
excess of that authorized by an existing permit. an amount and with surety and conditions satisfac-
The VMRC originally moved for immediate restora- tory to securing compliance with the conditions set
tion, but upon further consideration from the Attor- forth in the Restoration Order. Failure to complete
ney General's office, decided to subject the project the required restoration constitutes a separate viola-
to a full public interest review providing the prop- tion.
erty owner with due process. The application was
subsequently denied during review and the appli- Compliance Monitoring
cant was directed to remove the offending struc-
tures. The decision was later upheld on appeal to ne adoption of financial disincentives places a
the Circuit Court. burden not only on developers but also on individ-
The submission of an application or allowance ual wetlands boards. As briefly touched on earlier,
thereof is not a predilection for approval. It is an af- many of the problems previously associated with
firmation of due process which now also allows for enforcement efforts remain today. While it may
the application of civil charges (Step 10) for pro- prove relatively easy to determine that a bulkhead
jects which might reasonably have been approved was constructed without authorization, it is some-
in normal channels. what harder to determine the extent of encroach-
ment beyond that which was authorized by a
particular permit. The basis for such determinations
frequently hinges on the permit drawings that be-
came a part of the permit document at issuance.

As such, it would certainly behoove each local These are the only options available under this
board to adopt a more demanding stance in deter- Code section. The ramifications of each need to be
mining adequacy of application drawings. Effective clearly explained to the individual(s) in violation.
enforcement of permit noncompliance can only be Only with the individual's concurrence can the
achieved with more rigorous application standards. board assess a civil charge.
In a report produced by the Wetlands Advisory Pro-
gram at VIMS, "Monitoring of Compliance with
Permits Granted by Local Wetlands Boards," they Environmental Impact
concluded that without compliance monitoring for
permitted projects, the regulatory process may be Significant $5,000 $7,500 $10,000
undermined by unnecessary wetland losses. Thus Moderate $1,500 $3,000 $4,500
producing a false impression of the degree to which
wetland resources are being protected (Bradshaw, Minimal $ 500 $ 1'000 $11500
1990). Minor Moderate Major

Relative Degree of Deviation
Civil Penalties and Charges or Non-compliance

The major thrust of SB183 was the addition of
teeth into an administrative process. The provision Table I - Civil Charge Determination
of penalties and charges, however, does nothing to
ease the burden of identifying and legally docu-
menting the existence of a violation. As previously
discussed, application drawings become the only re-
liable standard by which permit compliance can be Section 62.1-13.18:2 indicates that a board may
determined. order a one-time payment of civil charges for each
The review of enforcement procedures identi- violation not to exceed $10,000. Table I - Civil
fied two available paths for invoking civil penalties Charge Determination, has been developed to en-
or charges, step 8 or step 9. Both paths involve sure continuity between the boards as they individu-
identifying the presence of a violation. Only after a ally arrive at an actual dollar amount representative
violation has been determined and sufficiently docu- of the violation in question. This assessment is de-
mented, including steps 4, 5 & 6, can the board pro- signed to contain the flexibility necessary for the
ceed. In cases where restoration is a desirable board to arrive at a conclusion based on the specific
conclusion, the individual has the option of restor- terms of each specific violation. Tlese amounts are
ing the area to pre-existing conditions. (Voluntary by no means absolute and are intended to be used
restoration in this manner may still benefit from a as a guide rather than a template.
restoration hearing to establish the formal condi- Environmental Impact in this table refers more
tions for restoration. A minimum 30 day notice of a to the relative environmental value of the resource
restoration hearing applies.) Otherwise, application lost and less to the actual square footage of area im-
for a permit modification or after-the-fact approval pacted. The values for each wetland type may be
is necessary. The show cause hearing again pro- found in the Wetlands Guidelines. For example,
vides the setting for discussion of the available op-
tions. 100 square feet of impact to two stands of vegetated
Any violation, whether voluntarily restored or wetlands may be viewed differently depending on
not, should be considered an agenda item and fully the dominant plant species. A Group One wetland
discussed during a regularly scheduled meeting of ranks higher in value than a Group Five wetland
the wetlands board. Standard notification proce- and therefore would tend to be a more significant
d ures apply. The party involved should be con- loss even though on an areal basis the impacts
tacted and informed that the violation in question might at first appear relatively equal, (Wetland
will be discussed at the following board meeting Guidelines 1974, amended 1982).
and that their presence is requested at the hearing. Relative Degree of Deviation or Non-compli-
In the absence of complete and satisfactory res- ance refers to the extent of a violation. This could
toration, anyone found in violation of these Code include not only the magnitude of the area of im-
sections is subject to either a civil penalty (Circuit pact but other mitigating factors such as:
Court) or to a civil charge (local wetlands board).

Good Faith
Degree of Willfulness
History of Non-compliance
Cooperation

(Professing an ignorance of the law should not
be considered a mitigating factor.)

Conclusion

While it is appealing to believe that successful
implementation of these Code changes will solve
all of the problems with respect to wetland viola-
tions and after-the-fact applications, such a situ-
ation is unlikely. As long as individuals choose to
live along the shores, development activities within
this coastal fringe will continue to exert tremendous
pressure on Virginia's tidal wetlands and sub-
merged lands.
The success or failure of these Code changes
will be directly related to each of Virginia's local
wetlands boards. Enforcement needs to be accom-
plished in as uniform and consistent a manner as
possible. At a minimum, each board should thor-
oughly review its present enforcement procedures
and determine how the current changes need to be
incorporated within their existing administrative in-
frastructure.
This expanded authority is not the ultimate an-
swer. A great deal of the problem with enforcement
and permit compliance rests in a lack of attention to
detail, crossed communication, and poor follow-up.
Remember, "as close to the bank as possible" may
be viewed in a variety of ways. It may mean within
three feet to the wetlands board, but it could mean
"as far as I care to go" for someone buflding the
structure.

Literature Cited

Bradshaw, J.G. 1990, Monitoring of compliance with permits
granted by local wetlands boards. Technical Report No.
90-1. 7p. College of William and Mary, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science,
Wetlands Program, Gloucester Point, Virginia.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1974. Wetlands
Guidelines. Available from VMRC, Newport News,
Virginia.

Attachment A
Virginia Acts of Assembly - Chapter 811

1990 Session
An Act to amend and reenact �� 62.1-13.4 and 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia and
to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter I of 2-ttle 62.1 a section numbered
62.1-9.1, and sections numbered 62.1-13.18:2 and 62.1-13.27.1, relating to the restora-
tion of habitat; penalties.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That �� 62.1-13-4 and 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reen-
acted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Chapter 1 of Title 62.1 a sec-
tion numbered 62.1-9.1, and sections numbered 62.1-13.18:2 and 62.1-13.27:1 as follows:
� 62.1 -9. 1. Penalties. -A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this
chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or fails, ne-
glects or refuses to obey any Commission notice, orde', rule, regulation orpermit condi-
tion authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an appropriate circuit court,
be assessed a civilpenalty not to exceed $25,000for each day of violatiom Such civil
penalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be directed to be paid into the
treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation occurredfor thepurpose of
abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wetlands therein, in such a man-
ner as the court may, by order, direct except that where the violator is the county, city, or
town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct thepenalty to bepaid into the state treasury.
B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
consent of anyperson who has violated anyprovision of this chapter or who has violated
or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission order, rule, regulation orpermit
condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission may provide, in an order issued by
the Commission against such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each
violation in specific sums, not to exceed $10,000for each violation. Civil charges shall
be in lieu of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of
this section. Civil charges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by
the Commission or a wetlands board.
� 62.1-13.4. Marine Resources Commission to develop guidelines.---In order to im-
plement the policy set forth in � 62.1-13.1 and to assist counties, cities or towns in regula-

A - 1

tion of vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands, the Commission shall, with the advice and
assistance of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, which will evaluate wetlands by
type and maintain a continuing inventory of vegetated wetlands, from time to time promul-
gate in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (� 9-6.14:1 et seq.) guidelines
which scientifically evaluate vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands by type and which set
forth the consequences of use of these wetlands types. In addition, the Commission may
promulgate regulations in accordance with the Administrative process Act (� 9-6.14:1 et
seq.) which are necessary to carry out itspowers and duties under theprovisions of this
title. In developing guidelines or regulations, the Commission shall consult with any af-
fected state governmental agency.
� 62.1-13.16:1. Reporting, site inspections and notice to comply: Commission or
Wetlands Board to issue stop work order or restoration order. -- A. Repei4ifig, site ifispee
fiefts and nefiee te eemply. With respect to permits required pursuant to this chapter,
Chapter 1 (� 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (� 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of this title, the Commis-
sioner or Board Chairman may require of the person responsible for carrying out the provi-
sions of the permit such monitoring and reports as they may reasonably deem necessary.
With respect to any reported activity not authorized by the aforementioned chapters or
with respect to the violation of any permit issued pursuant thereto, they may direct such
on-site inspections as are deemed reasonably necessary to determine whether the meas-
ures required by the permit are being properly performed, or whether the provisions of the
aforementioned chapters are being violated. Prior to conducting such inspections, notice
shall be provided to the resident owner, occupier or operator.
Such resident owner, occupier or operator shall be given an opportunity to
accompany the site inspector. If it is determined that there is a failure to comply with the
permit, the Commissioner or Board Chairman shall serve notice upon the person who is
responsible for carrying out the provisions of the permit at the address specified by him in
his application or by delivery at the site of the permitted activities to the person supervis-
ing such activities and designated in the permit to receive such notice. Such notice shall
set forth the measures needed for compliance and the time with which such measures
shall be completed. Upon failure of such person to comply within the specific period, he
may be deemed to be in violation of this section and upon conviction shall be subject to
the penalties provided in this chapter.
B. Issuanee ef step werk e Upon receipt of a sworn compliant of a substantial
violation of this chapter, Chapter 1 (� 62.1.1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (� 62.1-13.21 et
seq.) of this title from the designated enforcement officer, the Commissioner or Board
Chairman may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in
subsection A of this section, issue an order requiring all or part of the activities on the site
to be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. In the case of an ac-
tivity not authorized by the aforementioned chapters or where the alleged permit noncom-
pliance is causing, or is in imminent danger of causing, significant harm to the
subaqueous bottoms, wetlands or the coastal primary sand dunes protected by the afore-
mentioned chapters, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the person
has been issued a notice to comply as specified in subsection A of this section. Otherwise,
such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a no-
tice to comply. The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and

A-2

shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending applica-
tion by the enforcing authority, permit holder or the resident owners, occupier or operator
for appropriate relief to the circuit court of the jurisdiction wherein the violation was al-
leged to have occurred. Upon completion of corrective action, the order shall immedi-
ately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commissioner or Board
Chairman from taking any other action specified in � 62.1-13.16.
C. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial violation of this chapter,
Chapter 1 (� 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (� 62.1-13.23 et seq.) of this title fi-om a desig-
nated enforcement officer, the Commission or a wetlands board may order that the af-
fected site be restored to predevelopment conditions if the Commission or board deems
restoration necessary to recover lost resources or to prevent further damage to resources.
Such an order shall specify the restoration necessary and establish a reasonable time for
its com letion. Such orders shall be issued only after hearing with at least thirty days no-
p
tice to the affected person of the time, place and purpose thereof, and they shall become
effective immediately upon issuance by the Commission or board The Commission or
board shall require such scientific monitoringplans as it deems necessary to ensure that
such projects result in the successful reestablishment of wetlands, subaqueous bottoms or
coastalprimary sand dunes protected by the aforementioned chapters and may require
that a prepaid contract acceptable to the Commission or board be in effect for the pur-
poses of carrying out the scientific monitoringplan. In addition, the Commission or the
board may require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with surety and
conditions satisfactory to it securing to the Commonwealth compliance with the condi-
tions setforth in the restoration orde-. The appropriate court, uponpetition by the Com-
mission or board, shall have authority to enforce any such restoration order by
injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Failure to complete the required res-
toration shall constitute a violation of this chapter
G.- D. The duties of the Commissioner or the Board Chairman prescribed in this
section may be delegated to their respective designees; however, such respective disignees
shall not be those persons who are also designated as enforcement officer.
�62.1-13.18:2. Penalties.--A. Without limiting the remedies which maybe obtained
in this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or
fails, neglects or refiises to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule,
regulation or permit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an
appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day
of violatiom Such civilpenalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be di-
rected to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation oc-
curred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of
wetlands therein, in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where
the violator is the county, city or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty
to be paid into the state treasury.
B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated
or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board orde-, rule,
regulation orpermit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands
board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against such

A-3

person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific sums, not
to exceed $10,000for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate
civil penalty which would be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civilcharges
may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wet-
lands board.
� 62.1-13.27. 1. Penalties. --A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained
in this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or
fails, neglects or refuses to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule
regulation orpermit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an
appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25, 000 for each day
of violation. Such civilpenalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be di-
rected to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation oc-
curred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of
wetlands thereit; in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where
the violator is the county, city or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty
to be paid into the state treasury.
B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
consent of anyperson who has violated anyprovision of this chapter or who has violated
orfailed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board order, rule,
regulatiot; or permit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands
board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against such
persot; for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific sums, not
to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate
civilpenalty which could be imposed under subsectionA of this section. Civil charges
may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wet-
lands board.

A-4

Attachment B
Sworn Complaint

No.

Date

Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, I hereby certify that a
substantial violation of Chapter 1, 2.1,or 2.2 of the Code has occurred at
(Location).

I have personally inspected the site and noted the following unauthorized activity:

19-
(Designated Enforcement Officer)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriate Wetlands Board

a Notary Public within and for
hereby certify that
a designated Enforcement Officer whose name is
signed to the foregoing, has acknowledged the same before me.

Given under my hand this _ day of

My Commission expires:

Notary Public

B - 1

Attachment C
Notice To Comply

No.

Date

Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, my field staff inspected
your construction site at (Location),
on (Date), at _(Time), having provided prior notice
of such inspection to on

The following discrepancies were noted:

The following corrective measures are needed to bring you into compliance:

These measures are to be completed by (Date).

Notice ordered by
(Wetlands Board Chairman)
on 19-.

Notice served to
(Signature of Person Notified)
on 19-.

C - 1

Attachment D
Violation Worksheet

ENFORCEMENT OFFICER:
DATE/TIME:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PHOTOS: YES or NO

1. LOCATION:

2. WHEN DID VIOLATION OCCUR: (If Known)

3. DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION:

4. DIMENSIONS OF IMPACT AREA:

5. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

6. WETLAND TYPE (S) IMPACTED: (Consult Wetland Guidelines)

TYPE: APPROX. AREA: sq. ft.
TYPE: APPROX. AREA: sq. ft.
TYPE: APPROX.AREA: sq. ft.
TYPE: -APPROX. AREA: sq. ft.

7. REASON FOR VIOLATION:

D-1

Attachment E
Stop Work Order

No.

Date

Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, having received a Sworn
Complaint from my designated Enforcement Officer (Copy Attached), issued Notice to
Comply No. on , (Copy Attached), that a substantial violation
of Chapter 2.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code exists as noted on the attached, you are hereby
notified that further work at
(Site Location)

must be IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUED.

Work may be resumed under the following conditions:

Ordered by
(Wetlands Board Chairman)
on 19-.

Notice served to
(Signature of Person Notified)
on 19-.

(Signature of Enforcement Officer)

E - 1

I
,I I i, I
I
I NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY . .
!

3 6668 14112907 4