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



                                                                                                             Task 10 FY 90
                                                                                                             Final Work Product


                                                                                                      Air
                                                                         age.   e
                                                        0,          ......               ......
                                                                         J.5
                                                                          .e              ...... .....
                VIRGINIA

                                         C*
              io.&   A .-I
                                                   Permit Compliance and Inspection Program:
                                                   Findings and Guidance Document


                                                                                    Robert C. Neikirk



                    INTRODUCTION                                                minimizes adverse impacts to the valuable natural re-
                                                                                sources within our coastal zone.
                                                                                    Permit compliance is a mandatory component of any
                    The Virginia Marine Resources Commission                    effective regulatory program. As such, it is essential that
                ("the Commission" or "VMRC'), in conformance                    the terms and conditions contained in those permit docu-
                with Section 62.1-3 of the Code of Virginia, is the             ments be followed if we are to realize the full benefits of
                State agency responsible for issuing permits for en-            the regulatory program. Without such permit compli-
                croachments in, on, or over State-owned submerged               ance, the regulatory process breaks down and serves
                lands throughout the Commonwealth. The Com-                     only to increase bureaucracy.
                mission has possessed this regulatory authority                     In July 1990, Senate Bill 183 became law (Ch. 881
                since 1962- We currently process over 2,000 appli-              Acts of Assembly 1990). This legislation provided the
                cations and issue nearly 500 permits annually. Vir-             Commission and local wetlands boards with the author-
                ginia is a "low water state" and assumes jurisdiction           ity to issue restoration orders and assess civil charges for
                of submerged lands charmelward of the mean low                  violations of the applicable subaqueous, wetlands and
                water mark in tidal waters, and has regulatory                  sand dune statutes. An ability to accurately determine
                authority channelward of the ordinary high water                and monitor compliance with permit requirements is es-
                mark on most naturally occurring nontidal peren-                sential if the agency and wetlands boards are to effec-
                nial streams.                                                   tively carry out the intent of this legislation.
                    In addition to managing the Commonwealth's                      Unfortunately, Commission staff does not currently
                submerged lands, the Commission also regulates                  have'a standardized procedure for monitoring permit
                certain activities in tidal wetlands and coastal pri-           compliance. Instead, the staff engineer assigned respon-
                mary sand dunes pursuant to Chapters 2.1 and 2-2                sibility for a particular locality will attempt to inspect
                of Title 62.1 of the. Code of Virginia. 1,ocal govern-          projects which are under construction or have begn re-
                ments have the option to adopt and administer the               cently completed. Quite often such compliance inspec-
                ordinance. VMRC asserts original jurisdiction in                tions are in response to the receipt of an inquiry or
                those Tidewater localities which have not assumed               complaint. Additionally, the Commission's marine law
                local regulation through the adoption of the model              enforcement personnel are often aware of permitted pro-
                wetlands and dunes ordinances. Even where lo-                   jects in their localities and occasionally make site inspec-
                cally adopted and hinplemenwA the Commission re-                tions during the performance of their daily duties. In
                tains oversight responsibilities for all decisions              either case, however, only a small percentage of the pro--
                made by those local wetlands boards.                            jects permitted by VMRC are routinely inspected for
                    The regulatory activities conducted by the Com-             compliance.
                mission and the 34 local wetlands boards are inte-                  Permits issued by wetlands boards are also not al:
                gral core components of Virginia's approved                     ways carefully reviewed for compliance upon project
                Coastal Zone Management Program. The permit re-                 completion. Independent studies conducted by Brad-
                view processes used by the Commission and these                 shaw (1990), Hershner et al. (1985) and a survey' con-
                local wetlands boards ensures that necessary eco-               ducted in conjunction with this project indicate that the
                nomic development is permitted in a manner which                extent of permit compliance monitoring by local wet-
                                                                                lands boards varies between localities. That effort



                           Zidireportwasfunde4 impar4 by AeVirginia Council on AcEntir@'sCoanalRerourc=ma-g-twj,@-g-- d--gh
                           A90AA-H-CZ7% v1dieNational Oceanic andAhnosphericAdministration under the Coastal Zone ManagemauAct of 1972 as amcnde@L
                    rant #K


                          it -0
                   1:7







                 ranges from rigid compliance monitoring programs                                     not yet received a permit due to delays or denial were
                 to virtually nonexistent monitoring. The level of                                    discarded. After screening, 120 projects remained in the
                 monitoring is quite often dictated by both the                                       sample group. Prior to conducting the survey we con-
                 amount of permit activity and available staff time.                                  sulted with Mr. Lyle Varnefl and other members of the
                 Therefore, although permit compliance monitoring                                     Wetlands Department at the Virginia Institute of Marine
                 is an essential element of the regulatory process and                                Science and determined that a sample size equal to or
                 a valuable tool for gauging the effectiveness of the                                 greater than 120 should provide statistically significant
                 permitting system, there is not a standard procedure                                 results.
                 for such monitoring, and only a few wetlands
                 boards actually utilize a comprehensive compliance
                 program.
                      This study, funded in part by the National Oce-
                 anic and Atmospheric Administration through a                                        Table 1.
                 grant received under the Coastal Zone Management                                     Number and jurisdictional type of project selected for the
                 Act of 1972 as amended, was conducted to study
                 permit compliance, develop a permit compliance                                       compliance survey in each locality.
                 and monitoring program for use by the Marine Re-
                 sources Commission, and to make recommenda-
                 tions; to the local wetlands boards, where                                           Lecallity            Rural[Urban #of Projects          JyRs or Prolled
                 appropriate, in an effort to help improve their per-
                 mit compliance efforts.
                                                                                                      Accomack             Rural           15                3S, 7W, 5B
                                                                                                      Chesapeake           Urban           4                 4W
                      COMPLLAANCE SURVEY                                                              Essex                Rural           I                 IB
                                                                                                      Fairfix              Urban           I                 1W
                      Ile compliance survey was designed to investi-                                  Gloucester           Rural           3                 IS, IW, IB
                 gate and gauge the effectiveness of the various com-                                 Hampton              Urban           5                 32,2W
                 pliance monitoring programs currently utilized by                                    James City           Urban           3                 3W
                 VMRC and local wetlands boards. The survey was                                       King George          Rural           I                 1w
                 intended both to identify existing compliance short-                                 King and Queen       Rural           I                 1w
                 comings and to ascertain effective compliance                                        Ki ng: VA I fiam     Rural           1                 IB
                 monitoring techniques in order to develop concise                                    LAncaster            Rural           9                 IS, 5W. 3B
                 recommendations to enhance compliance monitor-                                       Mathews              Rural           3                 3W
                 ing programs-                                                                        bfiddlesex           Rural           8                 IS, 5W, 2B
                                                                                                      Norfolk              Urban           8                 IS, 6W, IB
                      Methods                                                                         North'-pton          Rural           1                 =IS
                                                                                                      Northumberland       Rural           19                18W. IB
                      One hundred and forty (140) projects were ran-                                  Poquosou             Urban           I                 1w
                 domly selected from a pool of 778 applications sub-                                  Priam Vrdfiam        Urban           I                 IB
                 mitted in 1989 for permits to use or develop tidal                                   Stafford             Urban           3                 2St IW
                                                                                                      Suffolk              Rural           I                 1w
                 wetlands or to encroach in, on, or over State-owned
                 submerged land. Applications forsubaqueous per-                                      Virginia Beach       Urban           20                14W,  '6B
                 mits outside of the Tidewater region were excluded                                   Westmoreland         Rural           7                 4W, 3t
                 from the selection pool, as were applications which                                  York                 Urban           4                 3W, IB
                 did not require a permit from either the local wet-                                  Totals
                 lands board or VMRC. Also excluded were applica-                                     23 Localities        13 Rural        120 Projects      13 Subaqueous
                 tions which only requested authorization for private                                                      10 Urba a       Reviewed          81 Wetlands
                 boathouses. Although more recently issued permits                                                                                           26 Both
                 could have been used, 1989 permits were selected
                 because it was believed that the majority of these                                       Permit activity per locality is highly variable. For ex-
                 projects would likely have been constructed by the                                   ample in 1989 there were no applications received in
                 time of the survey.                                                                  some localities whfie in others over 200 were reviewed.
                      The 140 selected applications were.screened                                     Since permit activity varies widely between localities
                 and those applications which were submitted after-                                   and because the study hoped to draw conclusions on the
                 the-fact, involved only subaqueous dredging, or had


             %
                                                                                                2








                                                                                 Categories 1, 2 and 3 were fairly straightforward and
                   Figure 1. Tidewater Virginia                              easy to assess. The distinction between those projects
                                                                             considered to be in moderate compliance or out of com-
                                                                             pliancc was more difficult to make and became some-
                                                E]     LM=                   what subjective. As a rule, however, those projects
                                                                             considered to be moderately in compliance possessed an
                           S.Wk-                       PA"                   average additional encroachment which did not exceed 6
                         VAN-                                                inches greater than the permitted alignment, and had
                                                                             length and square foot measurements which were no
                                                                             more than 10% greater than that authorized. Those pro-
                                                                             jects exceeding either of the above thresholds were con-
                                                                             sidered to be out of compliance.
                                                                                 As previously mentioned dredging projects were not
                                                                             included in the survey. These projects were excluded be-
                                                                             cause we believed that it would be difficult to distin-
                                                                             guish between man-made and natural post-dredging
                                                                             deviations in depth contours. However, recommenda-
                                                                             tions to monitor compliance for dredging projects are in-
                                                                             cluded in the Recommendations section of this
                                                                             document.



                                               ch.-P"k.                          Results


                                                                                 The results of the survey are summarized in Table 2.
                overall effectiveness of permit compliance within            You will note that the survey results were subdivided
                the coastal zone, no effort was made to ensure that          into rural and urban categories. This was done in an ef-
                all localities were represented in the survey. in-           fort to ascertain if there were any demographic differ-
                stead, it was anticipated that the random sample             ences in compliance levels. For the purpose of this
                would result in a sample group which more accu-              study, rural localities were defined as those having popu-
                rately reflected the average permit activity per local-      lation densities of less than 140 per square mile; urban
                ity. Therefore, the number of projects reviewed mi           localities were defined as having population densities
                each locality varies according to the observed per-          greater than 140 per square mile. The figures for popula-
                mit activity in 1989.                                        tion density were obtained from the 1980 census by the
                                                                             U. S. Department of Commerce (Upiv. of Virgmiia,
                    Twenty-three (23) of the 49 Tidewater localities         1987). Ibis breakdown was al    .so @=_med after ihat
                were represented in the sample group. Figure I and           used by Bradshaw (1990) in her compliance monitoring
                Table I illustrate the Tidewater region and indicate         study.
                the number of projects reviewed in each locality.                In addition to providing the raw numbers for the pro-
                Eighty-one (81) of the selected projects required            jects determined to be in a particular category, Table 2
                only a wetlands permit, 13 required only a subaque-
                                                                             also provides the percentage of constructed projects
                ous permit and 26 impacted both jurisdictions and            which were categorized by their level of compliance.
                required subaqueous as well as wetlands permits.             These percentages are particularly interesting when
                    Site inspections were made of all the 120 se-            evaluating the results. Especially noteworthy are the per-
                lected projects to determine the degree of compli-           centages of projects in which compliance could not be
                ance. Results of the compliance inspections were             determined. Figure 2 further illustrates this information.
                grouped into five categories:

                    I.  Project not constructed
                    2.  Unable to determine compliance
                    3.  In compliance with the permit document
                    4.  Moderately in compliance with the permit
                        document
                    5.  Out of compliance with the permit document




                                                                         3









                 Table 2.                                                                    Due to the somewhat subjective nature of the data
                 Compiled results of compliance survey conducted for                    and the low number of samples in some of the sub-
                 projects permitted in Tidewater during 1989.                          groups, no statistical tests for significance were at-
                                                                                        tempted. Nevertheless, there appears to be a discernible
                                                                                        difference between rural and urban localities in all the
                                                                                        categories other than "Moderate Compliance." A clearer
                                                                                        disparity exists, however, when the cities of Virginia
                                                                                        Beach and Norfolk are factored independently and then
                                                Total        Urban      Rural            compared to all other localities. Ilis is presented in Ta-
                                                                                        ble 3 and illustrated in Figure 3.

                 of Projects Reviewed           120         50         70
                 % of Projects Reviewed         n/a         42%        58%              Table 3.
                                                                                        Compiled results of compliance survey conducted for pro-
                                                                                        jects permitted in Tidewater during 1989. Va. Beach and
                 of Projects Constructed        98          43         55               Norfolk factored independently.
                 % of Projects Reviewed         82%         86%        79%

                                                                                                                       T&W        Urban     Emal      Va. Beach
                  in Compliance,               50          26         24                                                                             & Norfolk
                 % of Constructed Projects      51%         60%        44%                Projects Reviewed            93         22        70        28
                                                                                        % Projects Reviewed            77%        18%       58%       23%
                 Moderate Compliance            14          6          8
                 % of Constructed Projects      14%         14%        14%                Projects Constructed         76         21        55        22
                                                                                        % Projects Reviewed,           82%        95%       77%       79%
                  Out of Compliance            a           2          6
                 % of Constructed Projects,     8%          5%         11%                In Compliance                32         8         24        18

                                                                                        % Constructed Prcjects         42%        38%       44%       82%
                 Compliance Intersainable       26          9          17
                 % of Constructed Projects      27%         21%        31%                Moderate Contptiaacc        12         4         8         2

                                                                                        % Constructed Projects         16%        19%       14%       9%

                 Figure 2.
                 Projects categorized by level of compliance.                           #Out of Compliance             8          2 -       6         0
                                                                                        % CmLstruted "ects            10%        10%       11%       0%


                 Paco
                 0                                                    0 TGN            0 Compliance 0qUdeterzoinable    24         7         17        2
                                                                                        1% Coastructed Projects        32%        33%       31%       9%
                 so-                   - - - - - - -                   0 Ub.
                                                                       0q0 A.W
                 so-          - - - - - - - - - - - -                                       Figure 3 clearly illustrates a disparity between the cit-
                 400q-          - - - - - - - - - - - -                                   ies of Virginia Beach and Norfolk when compared to all--
                                                                                        other Tidewater localities. Eighty-two (82) percent of
                                                                                        the completed projects reviewed in Virginia Beach and
                                                                                        Norfolk were determined to be in compliance, whereas
                 20           - - - - - - - - -                                         only 4240q% of al2ql other projects reviewed were catego-
                                     14 14 14                                           rized as "In Compliance". Also noteworthy is how simi-
                 10                                         11                          Iar the percentages of the urban and rural localities
                                  72qA68qr76qg-I                                                       me once Virginia Beach and Norfolk are factored
                                     1117A [                                            beco
                                     128q6                                                 OU0qL
                 In Comptinace    Modearte.          out at      bdeterzainaMe
                                 Compliance         Compliance     Compliance




                                                                                   4








                Figure 3.                                                        able. Compliance determinations are made more diffi-
                Projects categorized by level of compliance. Va. Beach           cult when the person inspecting the constructed project
                and Norfolk factored indenpendently.                             was not present during the initial site visit and is there-
                                                                                 fore unfamiliar with preconstruction conditions. With-
                                                                                 out the aid of precise benchmarks or other means to
                     P*M"UQ8                                                     pinpoint the alignment of a project, compliance determi-
                1W                                         UT"fVS&M              nations are difficult at best and frequently impossible.
                                                           0@(-Ve"4                  As expected, the projects in localities that require
                 ao  - -       - - - - - - -               0 F...                more detailed application drawings and inforination ex-
                                                           Mve&@.                hibited a higher percentage of determinable compliance.
                                                                                 This is illustrated in Figure 3. Compliance could be de-
                 M   - -       - - - - - - - - - - - -                           termined at 91% of the sites inspected in Virginia Beach
                                                                                 and Norfolk. Both of these localities require detailed
                                                                                 permit drawings with identifiable benchmarks. Both
                 40  -         - - - - - - - - - - - -                           also regularly conduct post-construction compliance in-
                                                                                 spections. Additionally, Virginia Beach requires profes-
                                                                                 sionally engineered project drawings and further
                 20  -         -         -- - - - -                              requires the permittees to post performance bonds.
                                                                                 Those bonds are not released until post-construction in-
                                                                                 spections; have determined that projects are indeed in
                   0                                                       L     compliance with the permit granted by the Board.
                     in COMPHAnce   Mo&rate         Out of    In&terminabk           Not only was compliance usually determinable at the
                                   COMPUMce      COMPELence COMPHance            Virginia Beach and Norfolk projects, but the level of
                                                                                 compliance was generally higher as well. This is most
                     Discussion                                                  likely attributed to the regular post-construction inspec-
                                                                                 tions. Ninety (90) percent of the projects where compli-
                     A cursory review of the survey results is at first          ance could be determined in Virginia Beach and Norfolk
                very discouraging. Of aU the constructed projects                were determined to be in compliance and 10% were in
                reviewed, only 51% were determined to be in com-                 moderate compliance. None of the inspected sites were
                pliance. It is important to note, however, that com-             determined to be out of compliance. By comparison,
                pliance could not be determined for one reason or                15% of the sites visited in other localities, were catego-
                another at 27% of the sites visited. The fact that               rized as out of compliance, where compliance could be
                compliance could not be determined does not auto-                determined.
                matically mean that the projects were not built in                   Prior to conducting the study, it was anticipated that
                conformance with the intent of the permit docu-                  there would be a marked difference. in compliance levels
                ment.                                                            between urban and rural localitie-s.1nitially this ip-
                     In fact@ it is more encouraging to note that the            peared to be the case. Once Virginia Beach and Norfolk
                vast majority of the sites visited even where compli-            were factored independently from the other urban locali-
                ance could not be determined, appeared to have                   ties, however, the data revealed very little difference in
                been constructed along reasonable alignments and.                compliance levels between urban and rural localities.
                were often the proper length or width or both. This                  It appears that the programs being implemented by
                seems to indicate a general intent to comply with                Virginia Beach and Norfolk are effective in ensuring per-
                                                                                 mit compliance. As a result, the recommendations for
                permit requirements. Ibis opinion is further sup-
                ported by the fact that, of all those projects where             improving compliance draw heavily on the examples
                compliance could be determined, 89% were deter-                  provided by these localities.
                mined to be in either total or moderate compliance.
                     Ile primary problem identified during the sur-                  SUMM"Y AND RECONMENDA11ONS
                vey was the inability to precisely determine compli-
                ance at 27% of the sites visited. Many of the                        The increasing importance of effective compliance
                perrnits did not have adequate drawings or bench-                monitoring cannot be overstated. Recent legislative
                marks to ensure compliance. Additionally, many                   changes which authorize VMRC and wetland boards to
                permits contained ambiguous conditions such as,
                "approximately" or "as close to the bank as possi-               issue restoration orders and assess civil charges for viola-
                Me", which are by their nature virtually unenforce-              tions of wetlands, dunes, and subaqueous statutes neces-
                                                                                 sitate compliance programs which can accurately



                                                                             5








              ascertain whether projects were conducted in con-                  1. Require detailed drawings for all projects re-
              formance with the applicable permit documents.                 quiring a wetlands permit. At a minimum, all of the in-
              According to the 1988 report by the Year 2020                  formation contained in the Joint Permit Application
              Panel entitled, "Population Growth and Develop-                drawing checklist should be included in the drawings.
              ment in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the year               Some boards have taken this a step further and require
              2020", Tidewater will experience continued and                 professionally engineered drawings on all projects,
              rapid population growth over the next two decades.             while others require such P. E. stamped drawings only
              As a result, conflicts between the various compet-             on commercial projects or large projects that surpass a
              ing user groups within the coastal region can only             certain threshold of impact. These requirements should
              be expected to increase and the issues become more             be clearly established as wetland board policies. An ap-
              complex. Effective regulation and compliance moni-             plication should = be considered complete until all the
              toring will be essential if we are to accommodate              required information has been received.
              and manage this growth while limiting adverse im-
              pacts to our finite coastal resources.                             2. Special attention should be given to requiring
                                                                             accurate benchmarks and reference points. Accurate
                 When developing compliance monitoring poli-                 distances from fixed reference points or benchmarks to
              cies it will be important for the wetland boards and           each end and/or angle of the structure or impacted area
              VMRC to strike an appropriate balance between an               should be required. A sample plan view drawing con-
              effective program and unnecessary bureaucratic red             taining representative benchmarks is provided in Attach-
              tape. If the policies and procedures are overly com-           ment 1. These distances should be carefully confirmed
              plex, time consuming, or expensive, public outcry              during the initial site visit since they will ultimately be-
              and resistance is sure to occur. Therefore, the fol-           come the final indicators of permit compliance. If
              lowing recommendations are intended to provide                 benchmarks prove impractical for a particular project,
              the minimum mechanisms necessary to guarantee                  then a condition requiring that the alignment be staked
              increased compliance without imposing undue or                 and inspected prior to permit issuance should be im-
              unrealistic hardships upon the applicant.                      posed as conditions of approval. Some boards also re-
                                                                             quire that the alignment of a bulkhead be inspected and
                 Recommendations to Wetlands Boards to En-                   approved after installation, but prior to backfilling, to re-
              hance Compliance Efforts                                       duce the envirorunental impacts and costs of restoration
                                                                             in the event it has been improperly constructed.
                 Wetlands board compliance monitoring efforts
              vary widely between localities. As a result, some                 3. Take an adequate number of photographs or
              of the following recommendations will not be appli-            slides during the initial site visit to clearly document
              cable to all boards. In fact@ many of the recommen-            pre-construction site conditions. In addition to provid-
              dations were developed from existing wetlands                  ing valuable reference material for public hearings, pho-
              board policies which have proven to be effective.              tographic documentation provides c     le&comparative
              The majority of the recommendations are designed               evidence when determining permit compliance. If video
              to assist boards in developing an acceptable compli-           equipment is available, it may prove to be another help-
              ance monitoring program if they don't currently                ful tool. VCR tapes may even be less expensive and eas-
              have one. 77hey may also provide suggestions for               ier to archive in the long run. Photographic
              improvement in those boards with existing compli-              documentation is especially valuable if the project will
              ance procedures.                                               require the grading of the adjacent upland.
                 We acknowledge that numerous localities are al-
              ready financially constrained and as such may not                 4. Conduct routine post-construction inspections.
              have the additional funds or personnel necessary to            Although this may involve additional man-hours, it is
              dedicate to an expansion of their wetlands pro-                the only mechanism available to ensure permit compli-
              grams. These recommendations were developed                    ance. If the required permit drawings and benchmarks
              with that in mind. Most can be effectively imple--             are clear and accurate, the compliance checks can usu-
              mented without additional manpower. In fact, once              ally be conducted quickly, even by individuals unfamil-
              underway, an active compliance monitoring pro-                 iar with the project. Some localities might wish to
              gram could actually streamline project reviews and             utflize their existing local building or code compliance
              reduce the number of time consurning violations                inspectors to check wetland board permit compliance
              and after-the-fact permit requests that a board now            during their other regular duties. If a post-constmtion
              considers.                                                     inspection policy is adopted by the board, the inspectors
                                                                             should utilize a compliance inspection worksheet similar



                                                                         6








                 to the one developed by VMRC. This form may be                 provide an additional mechanism for ascertaining when
                 found as Attachment 2. The worksheet will help to              the permitted construction has been completed, since the
                 ensure that all the necessary information is gathered          permittee will typically call for a compliance inspection
                 during the inspection and will provide a quick refer-          soon thereafter in order to have his bond released.
                 ence in the event questions regarding the project              Whether or not the board develops a performance bond
                 arise later. Additionally, the worksheet information           policy for all projects, performance bonds should be con-
                 should be provided to VMRC for incorporation into              sidered as a valuable too] to ensure compliance on pro-
                 the compliance data base. The data base will pro-              jects of special concern.
                 vide a valuable source of information on compli-
                 ance and the overall effectiveness of individual                   Recommendations VMRC Should Consider to En-
                 wetlands boards.                                               hance Compliance Efforts

                     5. Utilize only enforceable permit conditions                  Virginia state agencies are also currently operating
                 and avoid nebulous statements such as "approxi-                within strict fiscal constraints. In addition, all agencies
                 mately" and "as dose to the bank as possible."                 continue to explore ways to streamline the permitting
                 Instead, the board should negotiate a specific maxi-           process. As a result, it is especially important that any
                 mum encroachment; length, or amount of impacts                 new compliance enhancement policies not result in addi-
                 should modifications become necessary to satisfy               tional burdens on VMRC's financial resources nor result
                 any concerns. If modifications or revisions are                in unnecessary additional requirements imposed on the
                 agreed to during the public hearing, revised draw-             applicant. The following recommendations are made
                 ings which accurately reflect the modification, in-            with this in mind and are typically policy and procedural
                 cluding revised benchmark distances, should be                 type changes rather than an imposition of new require-
                 required prior to permit issuance.                             ments on the applicant. Many of the recommendations
                                                                                for VMRC are similar to those noted for wetlands
                    6. Develop a wedand board placard to be                     boards.
                 posted by the permittee at all permitted project
                 sites during construction. The placard can serve                   1. Require detailed drawings for all projects re-
                 to aid inspectors and concerned citizens when a pro-           quiring a VMRC permit. Staff engineers should utilize
                 ject is under construction and problems or questions           the drawings checklist found in the Joint Permit Applica-
                 arise. The placard would provide the name and per-             tion in their initial review of each application to deter-
                 mit number, making identification and inspection of            mine completeness. Areas where insufficient data was
                 the project easier. If the locality already requires           provided should be conveyed to the applicant with the
                 building permits for all wetland projects, they may            acknowledgement letter. Incomplete applications should
                 wish to avoid duplication and just add the wetland             not be processed. If adherence to this policy fails to pro-
                 permit number to the placard for easy idendfica-               vide the anticipated results, the Commission may wish to
                 tion. A sample placard that was developed for                  consider adopting a regulation thaiY-equires profi6ssion-
                 VMRC is provided as Attachment 3.                              ally engineered drawings be submitted on all commer-
                                                                                cial projects, or for projects exceeding a certain
                    7. Performance bonds can be utilized to pro-                threshold of impact or value. In the event an engineer
                 vide a financial incentive to comply with wet-                 can clearly determine from the available information that
                 lands permits. Some boards currently require all               a VMRC permit will not be required, additional informa-
                 perniittees to post a performance bond. 11hat bond             tion to satisfy this policy would not be necessary.
                 is not released until a post-construction inspection
                 has determined that the project was constructed in                 2. Accurate benchmariks or reference points
                 conformance with the permit document. Some                     should be required on the plan view drawing(s) of-all
                 boards may determine that bonds are not appropri-              projects requiring VMRC authorization. Accurate
                 ate for all projects due to low permit activity or the         distances from the benchmark to each end, and angle of
                 fact that additional man-hours are required to proc-           the structure or impacted area should be mandatory.
                 ess the bonds.                                                 These distances should be routinely checked during the
                    Bonds are a compliance mechanism that are al-               initial site visit. If benchmarks are impractical for a cer-
                 ready provided for in the wetlands law. They are               tain project; it may be necessary to have the applicant
                 routinely used effectively by a few boards to ensure           stake the impacted area. If staking is utilized, the engi-
                 compliance. The bonds are typically set high                   neer should take an adequate number of slides to accu-
                 enough to provide sufficient funds to undertake res-           rately document the proposed alignmenL This may well
                 toration in the event of noncompliance. Bonds also             be the case for dredging proposals.



                                                                           7








                                                                            method to identify projects which have yet to be in-
                 3. Engineers should take an adequate num-                  spected, as well as, provide the next logical step in per-
             ber of slides during the initial site visit to clearly         mit tracking. Used in conjunction with the existing
             illustrate pre-construction site conditions. Photo-            project description tracking data, the new data would al-
             graphs provide a valuable source of information                low examination of compliance by such attributes as,
             when reviewing constructed projects for compli-                project type, locality, contractor and agent involved. It
             ance. They are especially valuable when a great                would also provide important data on the number of pro-
             deal of time has elapsed since the initial site visit          jects which actually get completed. This information
             and in those cases where the engineer who origi-               would provide an additional valuable tool for monitoring
             nally reviewed the project is no longer available to           compliance and identifying potential shortcomings in the
             assist.                                                        regulatory program.
                 Although slides have been used almost exclu-                   VMRC should strongly encourage local wetlands
             sively in the past for photographic documentation,             boards to conduct routine post-construction inspections
             it may be useful to utilize video tape for certain             util izing the compliance worksheet and provide the re-
             types of projects. If video taping is used more fre-           sults of the inspections to VMRC for incorporation into
             quently, it may be necessary to develop a method to            the compliance tracking data base. Projects in localities
             archive the tapes for easy access and retrieval.               which opt not to conduct routine post-construction in-
                                                                            spections should be inspected by VMRC personnel, if
                 4. Engineers should conduct post-construc-                 necessary, to obtain the compliance data.
             tion inspections at all sites permitted by VMRC.
             Ile post-construction inspection form found in At-                 literature Cited
             tachment 2 should be utilized to ensure that all nec-
             essary information is gathered during the visiL
                 The Commission should consider expanding                 Bradshaw, J.G. 1990, Monitoring of compliance with permits
             their existing Memorandum of Agreement with the                granted by local wetlands boards. Technical Report No. 90-1.
             Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to in-                 7p. College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of
             clude the use of VDGIF personnel to conduct the                Marine Science, Wetlands Program, Gloucester Point,
             post-construction inspections in the western portion           Virginia.
             of the State.
                 Dredging projects should be evaluated by boat.
             Soundings should be taken to ascertain compliance.           Hcrshner, Carl, Thomas A. Barnard, Jr., and N. Bartlett
             Dredging inspections should be conducted as soon               Theberge. 1985. Analysis of Virginia's local wetlands boards.
             after completion as practical to minimize the likeli-          Pgs. 537-543 in Magoon, Orville T., Hugh Converse, Dallas
             hood that additional impacts from non-dredging re-             Minor, Delores Clark and L Thomas Tobin, eds. Coastal Zone
             lated factors could obscure or cloud the dredged               '85. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Coastal and
             dimensions of the area. If available, a chart re-              Ocean Management. American Society-o M-ivil Engineers.
             corder or a precise recording fathometer would be              New York. 2672p.
             especially valuable to document the inspection,
                 In order to receive notification of the comple-
             tion of permitted activities, VMRC should consider           University of Virginia, Center for Public Service, 1987.
             re-instituting the former postcard notification proce-         Virginia Statistical Abstract. Center for Public Service,
             dure. Should the permittees fail to regularly return           University of Virginia. Charlottesville, Va.
             the postcards upon completion, which was often the
             case in the past, the Commission might have to re-
             sort to bonding or some other form of deposiL This
             bond would not be released until after a post-con-           Year 2020 Panel. Population Growth and Development in the
             struction inspection had confirmed permit compli-              Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020. Chesapeake
             ance. It might be necessary to seek legislative                Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland. 52p.
             authorization if the Commission is to require bonds
             for permits issued under Section 6ZI-3.

                 5. Data collected from the post-construction
             inspections should be Incorporated into the Habi-
             tat Management Division's existing computer
             tracIdng system. This Would provide an easy



                                                                        8







                                                     Attachment I








                                          I.tI0


                                        1" 12
                              I.t 13
                                     Wt IL2




                                  Site Map                                      Vicinity Map

                                                                            RIZM
                                   IA)t 10                              n






                                                                                 25-




                                            57


                                   Loot 11
                                                                            4

                                                                            :x














                                  Lot 12                                       AL





               Datum: MLW
                                                       Plan View                  County,of. Northumberland
               Adjacent Property Owners
                 1. Lot 10, C.B. Parks                   John G. Doe              Sheet 1 of 1         -
                 2. Lot 12, M.E. Lank                   P.O. Box 123              Date: August 3, 1991
                                                      Mdewater, Va????





                                                              9






                                                Attachment 2


                                  PROJECT COMPLIANCE
                                           ASSESSMENT





                                                                 VMRC
                                                                 ENGINEER
                                                                 SITE VISIT
                                                                 DATEMME
                                                                 OTHERS PRESENT



                  1. Permitee


                  2.    Location (Waterway)
                                (City/County)

                  3.    Project Description

                  4.    Project Completed?         Yes           No

                        Date of Permit Expiration (VMRQ
                                                 (LWB)

                  6.    Project Dimensions as Permitted



                  7.    Project Dimensions as Constructed



                  8.    Can Permit Compliance be Determined?          If no, explain.



                  9.    Degree of Compliance: In Compliance      Moderate Out of Compliance

                  10.   Additional Comments








                                                         10






                                                Attachment 3


                                              VIRGINIA                      Permit

                                                                   co
                                                                   -Co


                                                                4


                                                        C

                                  Commonwealth of Virginia
                               Marine Resources Commission
                                            Authorization





                A Permit has been issued to:
                                                              (Name)

                                                             (Address)



                 The Permit Authorizes





                      Issuance Date                          Expiration Date



                                                   (Commissioner or Designee)


                                                   (Notary Public)


                                                   (Commission Expires)


                                This Notice Must Be Conspicuously Displayed At Site Of Work






                                                                                                                    I    NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY          4- .

                                                                                                                    i                                         ,
                                                                                                                    i    3 6668 14112904 1






























                                                                                                                         I