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


                                                                                                                                                          Appendix 10-B



                                                                                                                                    . ..........
                                                                                         ...                             ... ............. ........ ...
                                                                            ...................
                                                               ... ...............
                                                                                                                               . . .. ...............                    ...... ....
                                                                                         a..... ..  ............... ........  0
                      VIRGINIA
                                                                                                                                   ............  .......
                                                                                                ...........
                                                               ...                            . .......          .......     ........................
                                                                                                         ................      ......
                                                                                                         X.............................
                                                1.                                                                       ..........
                                                                                                         ................  ...... :X:
                                                                                                         ....................... .......
                                                                                                         . ........      ... ... .... ... . .
                                                                                                         .............................. ::: .....  .........
                                                                                                                             . . . ..... . ..........
                                                                                                                                                                         ... ........
                                                                                                         ..............................
                                                                                                         ...............................
                                                                                         ........ ...........
                                                                                                                                                                         ...........
                                                                                                         ............................. ... ...................
                                                                                                         ............................. ..... ....
                                                                                                         ..............................        i.
                                                                                                         ................................
                                                                                                         .......................
                                                     ftft.                                               -..........................
                                                                                                         ..........................
                   %V       fit
                                                     co
                                                                       Restoration Under Title 62.1 of the
                      'Co
                                                                                                 Code of Virginia
                           0
                                    C                                                                    Charles R. Roadley, Jr.



                           Introduction                                                                  Existing compensation policy recommends against
                                                                                                         compensation for small losses (less than 1,000
                           In October 1989 the Virginia Marine Re-                                       square feet) in favor of eliminating the loss alto-
                      sources Commission adopted a Wetlands Mitiga-                                      gether. Where, when and how do we decide to re-
                      tion-Compensation Policy (WMCP) which set                                          store degraded habitat? A determination of the
                      forth pertinent definitions and policy as well as cri-                             appropriateness of restoration is an implicit func-
                      teria and guidelines for policy implementation.                                    tion of the restoration hearing, yet little guidance
                      The appropriateness of compensation, as set forth                                  currently exists in Code to assist in an objective
                      in these guidelines, is dependent on an evaluation                                 evaluation of what is or is not appropriate restora-
                      of the necessity of the proposed wetlands loss. Ne-                                tion and how best do we achieve our desired
                      cessity, in this case, has been qualified to ensure                                goals.
                      that all reasonable mitigative actions are taken;                                  The purpose of this report is to examine the
                      that the project is clearly water-dependent; and                                   concept of restoration from an administrative per-
                      that there is demonstrated need and an overwhelm-                                  spective while providing some insight into perti-
                      ing public and private benefit. Compensation is                                    nent technical considerations. This review will,
                      hereby defined to mean actions taken which have                                    for purposes of discussion, be confined to tidal
                      the effect of substituting some form of wetland re-                                wetlands with application to companion statutes.
                      source for those lost or significantly disturbed due                               Hopefully, this approach will assist in defining a
                      to a permitted development activity; generally                                     restoration mechanism which meets individual
                      habitat creation or restoration (WMCP 1989).                                       needs and requirements. The WMCP does pro-
                      The use here of the term restoration applies to wet-                               vide an existing framework to assist in the restora-
                      lands which were previously altered and are now                                    tion review process. It may be appropriate at this
                      being returned to a functional status through the                                  juncture, however, to try and assess possible pol-
                      permit process.                                                                    icy short-comings relative to restoration while pro-
                           On July 1, 1990, the State of Virginia adopted                                viding a direction for continued investigation.
                      amendments to Title 62.1 of the Code. The por-
                      tion of these amendments contained in 62.1-                                         Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy
                      13.16: 1C affect the regulation of subaqueous
                      lands, tidal wetlands and coastal primary sand                                      The existing compensation policy, which rec-
                      dunes by granting authority for the issuance of res-                               ommends wetlands losses be compensated on a
                      toration orders to recover lost resources or to pre-                               limited basis to replace unavoidable losses, is
                      vent further damage to resources. Restoration in                                   based on three observations. First, the concept of
                      this sense is an enforcement action designed to re-                                wetlands compensation contains inherent prob-
                      turn an area to pre-existing conditions. Since this                                lems including habitat exchange, technical exper-
                      is generally not permit action, restoration fails to                               tise and evaluation methodology, to name a few,
                      qualify under the existing WMCP as compensa-                                       that were yet unresolved in 1989; second, the sci-
                      tion.                                                                              entific community does not have all the philosophi-
                           The problems we have had and continue to ex-                                  cal and technical answers regarding compensation;
                      perience with unpermitted development activities                                   and third, the Virginia Wetlands Act, adopted in
                      have resulted in these Code changes. They were                                     1972, intended for the Commonwealth's wetland
                      designed to strengthen our existing programs.                                      resources to be preserved in their natural state

                             This report wasfunded, inpart, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through
                      grant #NAQ0AA-H-CZ796 of the National Oceanic andAlmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended.

                                                                                             F-1








              (WMCP 1989). Clearly, the existing compensa-                     site constraints, elevation, wave climate, currents,
              tion policy is designed to limit the practice of com-            salinity, slope, tidal range, soil chemical and physi-
              pensation in favor of wetlands preservation in the               cal properties, sedimentation, timing of construc-
              natural state while still accommodating necessary                tion, and project maintenance (to name just a few)
              economic development. The problem herein is                      need to be evaluated and possibly incorporated
              that restoration, a policy defined form of compen-               into an overall plan. Yet even in the face of these
              sation, is included in State Code to be used as                  technical constraints, restoration of a degraded
              somewhat of a remedial tool for violations of Title              habitat is advantageous and may have a significant
              62.1. The Policy limits the practice on one hand                 chance of success in terms of recreating the full
              while Code promotes it to recover lost resources                 range of wetland functions. This is in part due to
              or prevent further damage to resources.                          favorable site conditions which created the wet-
                 Despite definition conflicts, the WMCP does                   land in the first place and remnant wetland compo-
              provide a two-tiered mechanism for decision struc-               nents which can be incorporated into the
              ture. On the first tier, an evaluation is made of the            restoration effort.
              necessity for the proposed wetlands loss. Should a                  A significant stumbling block to successful
              project fail. this test, it would ostensibly be denied.          wetlands establishment; however, is a general lack
              A project permitted under this scenario would then               of understanding of wetland ecology and a clear
              be subject to the second tier compensation require-              definition of success. Historically, project goals
              ments contained in the WMCP Supplemental                         have either been absent or lack sufficient criteria
              Guidelines. In general, however, restoration as-                 other than the establishment of marsh vegetation
              sumes specific habitat loss is unacceptable (the                 over a given period of time. Monitoring and mid-
              first tier test has failed), yet the VIMCP relies on             course corrections are generally not provided as a
              the second tier requirements to adhere to the Sup-               condition of approval and therefore little if any as-
              plemental Guidelines to provide some form of                     surance is provided for "successful" establishment.
              quality control.                                                 Even when they are required, monitoring and en-
                 A simple answer may lie in a subtle revision of               forcement by officials has in the past been ham-
              policy definitions. Hopefully, such a revision                   pered by manpower and budgetary constraints
              could attempt to bring some order to the terminol-               (Race 1985). Success often depends upon the
              ogy applied to the topic of wetlands creation and                long term ability to manage, protect, and manipu-
              restoration. Unfortunately, as we see in Virginia,               late wetlands and adjacent buffer areas (Kusler
              much of the existing nationwide confusion over                   and Kentula 1990), yet in a recent survey of Vir-
              definitions is becoming formalized in state and lo-              ginia compensation projects, monitoring and fol-
              cal regulations related to wetlands creation and                 low-up appear to be used on only a limited basis
              restoration (Lewis 1990). From a scientific view-                with little consistency (Barnard and Mason 1990).
              point, wetlands restoration and wetlands creation                    The problem with restoration is often not
              share a common goal, the establishment of func-                  whether it is warranted, but rather once so ordered,
              tional wetlands. From an administrative view-                    how does one insure the end results match initial
              point, however, the two have distinct differences.               expectations. From a practical standpoint; restora-
                                                                               tion should be given serious consideration when
                  Restoration                                                  the extent of the violation is beyond that which
                                                                               would reasonably be approved. Recent actions by
                  Restoration can simply be defined as returning               local wetland boards have demonstrated the possi-
              from a disturbed or totally altered condition to a               bility of proceeding directly to the restoration proc-
              previously existing natural, or partially altered con-           ess through a show cause hearing instead of
              dition through some action of man (Lewis 1990).                  initiating the application review process and back-
              In general the idea of wetland restoration or crea-              ing into restoration through project denial. In this
              tion is a satisfying concept for both regulators and             scenario, once a violation has been documented,
              the regulated alike. The repair and replace sce-                 the board requests the property owner appear be-
              nario provides a palatable administrative solution               fore the board to explain the violation. The board
              to often complex environmental problems. The re-                 then has the option of scheduling restoration or
              ality of the situation, however, reveals that total du-          proceeding with a request for application submis-
              plication of natural wetlands is extremely difficult             sion and the probable application of civil charges.
              due to the complexity and variation in natural as
              well as created or restored systems (Kusler and
              Kentula 1990). Many critical factors including:



                                                                         F-2
  @7









                     Critical Factors                                             ess. Of the seventeen points highlighted in the
                                                                                  guidelines, the following items have direct applica-
                     There is unfortunately no single element which               tion to restoration efforts.
                  can be incorporated into a restoration effort that
                  will guarantee a successful project. There are in-                 "I. A detailedpla,-; including a scaledplan
                  stead a host of issues which need to be identified              view drawing, shall be submitted describing the
                  and incorporated into a restoration effort, or more             objectives of the wetland compensation (restora-
                  appropriately itemized in the project's restoration             tion), the type of wetland to be created, the mean
                  monitoring plan. This is not to say it is impossible            tide range at the site, the proposed elevations rela-
                  to plan and execute a successful restoration pro-               tive to a tidal datum, the exact location, the areal
                  ject It can merely be complex.                                  extent, the method of establishment and the exact
                     What defines a successful restoration project?               time ftame from initial work to completion.
                  Success may be viewed as either the replacement
                  of natural functional values or as compliance with                 A sample restoration monitoring plan work-
                  a specific contract It may also be viewed as                    sheet and sample drawings have been provided
                  achieving defined goals (Zedler and Weller 1990).               (Attachment A) to illustrate one possible format
                  While it is often desirable to promote specific val-            for a restoration plan. These items are not defini-
                  ues in a restoration plan, natural functions take               tive but once documented to the satisfaction of the
                  time to develop and may be too complex to be de-                board, they should become an official component
                  tailed in a construction contract (Zedler and                   of the restoration order (Attachment B) to be used
                  Weller 1990). A determination of success then                   to gauge project compliance. In general, project
                  must also include a time element in the form of                 drawings should be scaled and include both plan
                  monitoring plans over a specified duration. Just                and cross sectional views in sufficient quantity to
                  because an area supports wetland vegetation does                accurately depict the project area. At a minimum,
                  not guarantee that the functional values of a wet-              the following items should be included in project
                  land are intact You need only to refer to the "Vir-             drawings.
                  ginia Wetlands Guidelines" to refresh your
                  memory on the many types of wetlands and associ-                  9   Project Boundaries
                  ated values and to realize that returning an area to              0   Proposed Elevations
                  a functional status is more involved than mere                    0   Proposed Slope
                  grading and seeding. It should be recognized that                     Hydrology - Source of Water Supply
                  visual characteristics are generally easier to restore            0   Transition Zone - Connection to Upland
                  than subtle ecological functions (Kusler and Ken-                 0   Plant Location and Spacing
                  tula 1990).                                                       0   Temporary or Long Term Stabilization
                      There is no generic blueprint which can be ap-                    Structures
                  plied to all restoration efforts. While a cookbook                0   Location for Disposal of Material to be
                  approach is desirable, the large number of interde-                   Excavated
                  pendent and often site-specific variables make this               0   Defined Benchmarks with Tie-down Meas-
                  unrealistic. Despite the unknowns, there is enough                   ures
                  information available to suggest conditions which
                  favor success. In addition, restoration by it's very
                  nature has a greater chance of success since the                    "2. Once the grading is completed at the
                  area in question has already demonstrated the abil-             planting site, it should be impected by a compe-
                  ity to support a wetland community prior to its                 tent authority to insure that the elevations are ap-
                  conversion.                                                     propriatefor the vegetation to beplanted and that
                      There is quite possibly an inexhaustible list of            the surface drainage is effective.
                  criteria to consider when planning a restoration
                  project. The restoration monitoring plan is the ve-                 Elevation plays a crucial role in determining
                  hicle which should be used to set forth all perti-              the success or failure of any restoration efforL Fi-
                  nent information for initial review as well as all              nal elevations will be influenced by settling and
                  subsequent performance evaluations. Such a plan                 consolidation of substrates (Shisler 1990), as well
                  should detail all phases of the project- The exist-             as possible rebound from fill activities. Ideally, in-
                  ing WMCP Section 5 Supplemental Guidelines                      spections would be preformed by local officials.
                  provide some applicable considerations which can                In the absence of specific expertise, however, a co-
                  be incorporated into the restoration review proc-



                                                                            F-3








             ordinated effort should be made to involve those                than not speaking of the common reed grass,
             with appropriate technical training.                            Phragmilies australis. While listed as a Type VIII
                                                                             community in the "Wetlands Guidelines", reed
                "3. The compensation plan (restoration plan)                 grass is an aggressive opportunistic invader with
             and its implementation should be accomplished                   limited habitat value. Often establishing itself in
             by experienced professionals knowledgeable of                   disturbed soils, the plant can quickly spread be-
             general and site-specific requirements for wetland              yond the limits of restoration, out-competing al-
             establishment and long-term survival.                           most all indigenous plant species. These dense
                                                                             stands of reed grass militate against waterfowl, wa-
                This point touches on the consideration of spe-              terbird, and furbearer populations by replacing de-
             cific competence in restoration design and con-                 sirable food plants and reducing habitat
             struction. The issue of competence in this rather               heterogeneity, and open water space (Shisler
             technical field calls into question the need for                1990). The result is a homogeneous stand of vege-
             some standardization. Most localities, through a                tation void of the diversity in both plant and ani-
             process of trial and error, have adopted their own              mal composition which previously occupied the
             personalized standards with which area contrac-                 area. In situations where lesser value wetlands
             tors are asked to comply. Unfortunately, even Vir-              have been compromised and the threat of reed
             ginia's more aggressive localities have had to deal             grass invasion is high, it may be advantageous to
             with those who simple do not comply with these                  consider a restoration plan which favors lower ele-
             standards. While the imposition of civil charges                vations in mesohaline areas which in turn may
             will hopefully work to stem this practice, a more               guard against exotic intrusion. In a 1988 study of
             straightforward approach and partial solution may               a compensation site in Norfolk Virginia, investiga-
             result from state certification of shoreline contrac-           tors concluded that extensive Phragmites sp. adja-
             tors. Restoration places technical demands on con-              cent to a Spartina marsh had not invaded the
             tractors requiring expertise in a variety of                    newly created marsh due to salt intolerance (Blair
             nontraditional fields.                                          1991). When practical, concerted efforts should
                                                                             be made to limit the introduction and spread of
                 "4. A performance bond or letter of credit is               this plant.
             required and shall remain in force until the new
             wetland is established; a minimum of two growing                    "6. Not applicable to restoration"
             seasons.
                                                                                 7 All reasonable steps must be taken to
                 Section 62.1-13.16: 1 C provides the Commis-                avoid or minimize any adverse environmental ef-
             sion or board with the authority to require a reason-           fects associated with the compensation (restora-
             able bond or letter of credit in an amount                      tion) activities themselves.
             satisfactory to secure compliance. Several locali-
             ties already utilize these instruments to ensure                    One of the significant considerations which
             authorized encroachments are built to permit speci-             goes into the restoration decision process is that of
             fications. The amount of the bond or letter of                  adjacent habitat destruction or alteration during
             credit should reflect the costs associated with total           restoration. Generally small encroachments have
             restoration from start to finish.                               at times been allowed to remain for the sake of
                                                                             protecting adjacent habitat from excess siltation
                 "5. The compensation (restored) marsh                       and trampling. It should be noted, however, that a
             should be designed to replace as nearly aspossi-                restored welland and adjacent communities have a
             ble, the functional values of the lost resource on              much greater chance of providing habitat value
             an equal or greater basis. In genera4 this means                than one covered with 3 feet of fill. 'Me restora-
             creating a marsh of similarplant structure to that              tion plan should address probable impacts on adja-
             being lost (or previously destroyed). 7his may                  cent communities and specific efforts designed to
             not be the case where a lesser value marsh is in-               mitigate these impacts. Standard erosion and sedi-
             volved, ie. Group 4 or 5 wetlands. A minimum                    ment control practices should be employed as well
             1:1 areal exchange is required.                                 as consideration of the use of turbidity curtains to
                                                                             minimize sediment transport to adjacent subaque-
                 Of specific concern in any restoration effort is            ous habitat.
             the control of exotic species. In tidewater Vir-
             ginia, when we speak of exotic we are more often



                                                                        F-4








                     "8. Not applicable to restoration"                                 Monies for monitoring can be proffered di-
                                                                                     rectly by individual property owners or extracted
                     "9. Not applicable to restoration"                              indirectly through the imposition of civil charges.
                                                                                     Sections 62.1-9.1, 62.1-13.18.2:B, and 62.1-
                     "10. The type ofplant community proposed as                     13.27:13 provide for the imposition of civil charges
                  compensation (restoration) must have a demon-                      in addition to the cost of restoration. While main-
                  strated history of successful establishment in or-                 tenance should always be the property owners re-
                  der to be acceptable. "                                            sponsibility, the quality of monitoring would no
                     Not all wetland plant species share the same                    doubt benefit from objective analysis.
                  tolerance to change. Also, most wetland plants are
                  adapted for a specific range of conditions which is                    "15. Not applicable to restoration"
                  generally a function of elevation. These consid-
                  erations must be taken into account when planning                      "16. Not applicable to restoration"
                  a restoration project. While questions regarding
                  the type of plants suitable for a given area can                       1117 Not applicable to restoration"
                  often be answered with field observations in exist-
                  ing adjacent wetlands, the hardiness of the plants                     Conclusion
                  is altogether another issue and should be reflected
                  in the maintenance schedule. When the degree of                        It is clear up to this point that restoration, as a
                  uncertainty is high, the monitoring and mainte-                    remedy for violations of Title 62.1 has not been
                  nance of the site needs to reflect these conditions.               used extensively by either local wetland boards or
                                                                                     the Marine Resources Commission. It is equally
                                                                                     clear that the adoption and application of recent
                       "11. Not applicable to restoration"                           changes in Code will alter this position. The qual-
                                                                                     ity of the habitat reclaimed through the restoration
                       "12. Manipulating the plant species composi-                  process is directly related to an understanding and
                  tion of an existing marsh community, as a form of                  appreciation of the complexities involved in undo-
                  compensation (restoration), is unacceptable."                      ing what has been done and preparing the site to
                                                                                     be a self- sustaining persistent feature in the land-
                       This speaks for itself. It is undesirable to qual-            scape. Restoration is generally not a process to be
                  ify the improvement of an existing marsh as equi-                  measured in days or weeks. The reestablishment
                  table exchange for restoration.                                    of specific habitat values may take years. If ever
                                                                                     there was an appropriate application of the euphe-
                       "13. Nonvegetated wetlands should be treated                  mism "easier said than done, surely this occasion
                  on an equal basis with vegetated wetlands with re-                 would qualify.
                  gard to compensation (restoration), unless site-                       Successful restoration is not a function of good
                  specific information indicates one is more                         will or the devotion of time and efforL A success-
                  valuable than the other.                                           ful restoration plan is one which recognizes the
                                                                                     long term perspective, anticipates that something
                       If one fully considers the complexity, diver-                 unplanned may happen and provides for mid-
                  sity, and abundance of organisms in nonvegetated                   course corrections. It begins with the basic under-
                  wetlands, you can then appreciate the need to rec-                 standing of the critical components of a wetland
                  ognize these resources during the restoration ef-                  system and is tailored by site-specific constraints.
                  fort. While it may prove difficult and impractical                 The restoration monitoring plan and sample draw-
                  to "plant" the thousands of organisms potentially                  ings contained in Attachment A were designed to
                  lost due to illegal fill or dredging, every effort                 assist in the review of these components and the
                  should be made to ensure post-restoration condi-                   proposed restoration efforL
                  tions which favor recolonization.                                      Ideally, in the years that follow initial habitat
                                                                                     conversion, a restored wetland will undergo a re-
                       "14. Both short and long term monitoring of                   generation of its functional values. Such a progres-
                  the site should be considered on a case-by-case                    sion could then be quantitatively monitored
                  basis. For unproven types of compensation (resto-                  throughout the term of the plan to provide defini-
                  ration) the applicant will be res
                                                       ,ponsibleforfund-             tive functional assessments. Unfortunately, exten-
                  ing such monitoring as is deemed necessary.                        sive quantitative monitoring is both expensive and
                                                                                     time consuming. Instead, it may be reasonable to



                                                                                F-5









              rely on qualitative evaluation methods especially
              when considering the history of success in recreat-
              ing certain wetland types.
                  Administering restoration efforts goes well be-                    Literature Cited
              yond the restoration hearing. While maintenance
              of a project site and reporting requirements can
              reasonably be delegated to individual property
              owners, quarterly monitoring during the course of
              the review period should fall on the regulatory bod-                 Barnard, T.A. and Mason, P.A_ 1990. Compensatory
              ies. When problems do arise, the provisions con-                       mitigation within the tidal wetlands of Virginia.
              tained in the restoration document need to be                          Technical Report No. 90-7. 7p. College of William and
              upheld by the enforcing body. The restoration pro-                     Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of
              ject should be designed to be self-sustaining but                      Marine Science, Wetlands Program, Gloucester Point,
              natural occurrences oftentimes dictate objective in-                   Virginia.
              tervention to see that project goals are met.                        Blair, C. 1991. Successful tidal wetland mitigation in
                  Many of the problems, both philosophical and                       Norfolk, Virginia. Presented at Coastal Zone '91. July
              technical, that were unresolved in 1989 during the                     9-16. Seattle, Washington.
              formulation of the WMCP remain with us today.
              In the interim, however, a great deal of effort has                  Kusler, JA. and Kentula, M.E 1990. Wetland creation
              been put forth to try and resolve these questions.                     and restoration, the status of the science. Island Press.
              In light of ongoing changes in the status of the sci-                  pp. xvii-xxv.
              ence as well as changes in the laws protecting
              these resources, the following recommendations                       Lewis, R.R. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration, the
              are presented to assist in refining the administra-                    status of the science. Island Press. pp. 417-422.
              tion of the restoration process.                                     Race, M.S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation
                ï¿½   As restoration becomes a more widely used                        policies in the United States based on an analysis of
                    management tool, steps should be taken to                        past restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. Environ.
                    centrally locate project information. Consid-                    Manage. 9(l):71-82.
                    ering the purview of the VMRC's Habitat                        Shisler J.K. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration, the
                    Management Division, it is recommended                           status of the science. Island Press. pp. 143-170.
                    that this body facilitate the consolidation of
                    restoration project information.                               Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1989.
                                                                                     Wetlands mitigation-compensation policy. Available
                ï¿½   The Wetlands Mitigation Compensation Pol-                        from VMRC, Newport News, Virginia.
                    icy needs to be amended and refined to reflect                 Zedler J.B. and Weller M.W. 1990. Wetland creation and
                    changes in the status of the science as well as                  restoration, the status of the science. Island Press. pp.
                    changes in State Code. It may be necessary                       405-416.
                    @o clarify definitions to reduce policy con-
                    flicts and possible ambiguity.

                ï¿½   While a great deal of popular thought exists
                    on how best to evaluate restoration projects,
                    there is a dire need to agree on suitable stand-
                    ard methods to evaluate these types of pro-
                    jects.

                ï¿½   Construction of restoration projects requires
                    technically capable individuals with expertise
                    in nontraditional fields. It is advisable to de-
                    velop or encourage a certification/training
                    program to help reduce the number of ques-
                    tionable restoration efforts and wasted restora-
                    tion dollars.





                                                                               F-6









                                    Attachment A
                          Restoration - Monitoring Plan



               Please answer all questions on the Restoration Monitoring Plan. If a question does not
              apply to your project, indicate N/A. Please print or type. If additional space is needed,
              attach extra 8.5" x 11" sheets of paper.

                1. Property Owner's Name
                  and Complete Address:



                  Phone: Home (A/C                    Work (A/C


                2. Authorized Agent's Name
                  and Complete Address:



                  Phone: Home (A/C                     Work (A/C


                3. Have you obtained a contractor to preform the restoration? YES NO
                  If your answer is "YES", please provide the following information.

                  Contractor's Name
                  and Complete Address:


                   Phone: Home (A/C                     Work (A/C


                4. Have you consulted any engineer or other professional knowledgeable in this
               field to
                   assure the design of your restoration project is adequate? YES NO
                   If your answer is "YES", please provide the following information.


                            Name
                            Address


                            Phone




                                              F (A - 1)










                  5. How will the violation be removed and where will the fill material be disposed?





                  6. How will the fill material be contained and stabilized?



                  7. Have you indicated the disposal site on your project drawings?   YES        NO

                  8. What is your construction schedule?
                                        Activity                      Time Frame
                        Phase 1
                        Phase 2
                        Phase 3
                        Phase 4


                  9. What is the tide range at the site?        feet

                  10. State the type and composition percentage of the proposed marsh soil.
                       (e.g. 70% sand, 25% marsh peat, 5% silt)


                  11.  What is the average proposed slope of the restoration area?
                       Slope =      feet (Rise-Vert. Distance) :    feet (Run-Horiz. Distance)

                  12.  What is the average proposed slope of the upland transition zone?
                       Slope =      feet (Rise-Vert. Distance) :    feet (Run-Horiz. Distance)

                  13.  What is the longest fetch (distance over water) at the project site? feet


                  14.  What type(s) of wetland plants will be planted?

                              None (Natural Re-vegetation)

                            Plant Type            Percentage              Origin

                        e.g. Spartina alt.        _J@00__               Purchased









                                                                F (A - 2)










                 15. For plant material which will be purchased, indicate the supplier's name address
                     and phone number.
                                          Name
                                          Address
                                          Phone



                 16. If you will be transplanting from existing stands, do you have the requisite permission
                     to harvest plant material?   YES         NO


                 17. List the place of origin for each plant type listed in question 14.

                               Plant Type          Place of Origin

                          e.g. S12artina alt.      Wilmington, N.C.







                 18. When will these plants be planted?


                 19. Are you incorporating any stabilization structure(s) with this project? YES NO

                     If your answer is "YES", are these structures permanent or temporary? (Circle Choice)

                     Are these structures depicted on project drawings? YES   NO


                 20. Will this restoration project involve encroachment channelward of mean low water?
                            YES         NO
                     If your answer is "YES", have you obtained the necessary authorizations for such
                     encroachment?     YES      NO


                 21. Will fertilizer be applied during planting? YES   NO

                     If your answer is "YES", what brand of fertilizer will be applied and at what
                     concentration?
                                  Brand                      Concentration
                                  (Include any follow-up fertilization in your maintenance schedule)





                                                  F (A - 3)










                   22. Indicate the length and individual components of your maintenance schedule following
                        completion of construction. The minimum length is two years. (Include such items as,
                        fertilization, wrack removal, replanting, and exotic species control, etc.)

                                    Activity                                  Time of Year
                   Year 1








                                    Activity                                  Time of Year
                    Year 2









































                                                                    F (A - 4)





























                                                           3-dm                                                   10 U         Pr*@
                                                           PM Dbp-d                       I= 13
                                                                                                               13
                                                                                                                                                   Ce


                                                                                             Site Map                                                                                                                     Vicinity Map


                                                                                                 Lot 10





                                                                                                                                                                                                .. ............... .
                                                                                                                                                                                                . ................


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        BuDdwad to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        be Rcbxpved
                                                                                                                                                                                                ...............
                                                                                                                                                                                                ..............
                                                                                                                                                                                                .............




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              D
                                                                                                                                                                                                  ........... .
                                                                                                                                                                                                .. ........


                                                                                                                                                                                                .............


                                                                                                                                                                                                ...............
                                                                                                   Lot 11                                                                         @p

                                                                                                                                                           A                                                                                           A

                                                                                                                                                                                                ...............
                                                                                                                                                                                                ...................

                                                                                                                                                                                                . . ........... .

                                                                                                                                                                                                ... . .......... .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               J



                                                                                                                                                                                                ..........
                                                                                                                                                                                                              'N
                                                                                                                                Top Up d Sk
                                                                                                                                                                                                      .... .......



                                                                                                                                                                                                ...........
                                                                                                                                                                                                ....................

                                                                                                                                                                                                ............  `.-*.-'.-.-::
                                                                                                                                                                                                .....................:
                                                                                                                                                                                                .....................
                                                                                                                  Nm PM v-4-1 to be
                                                                                                                                                                                                . . . . . ...........
                                                                                                                            Plawd In D
                                                                                                                            SM an             I


                                                                                                 Lot 12




                                             Datum: MLW                                                                                              Plan View                                                            County of. Northumberland
                                             Adjacent Property Owner,                                                          Proposed Restoration Sheet 1 of 2
                                                 1. Lot 10, C.B. Parks
                                                2. Lot 12, M.E. Lank                                                                                   John G. Doe                                                        Date: August 3, 1991
                                                                                                                                                      P.O. Box 123
                                                                                                                                              Tidewater, Va 22222
                                                                                                                                                   C@e



















































































                                                                                                                                                                 V (A -
















                                                                 Section A-A
                                                          Existing Fill and Bulkhead










                 Limit of vethn&                                              ---------------------------------  UMV *as'
                 1.5 X the Mean Ilde Range


                                                                                                  ............   MLV. Off
















                                                                 Section A-A
                                                             Proposed Restoration







                                                        Limit of Wedands



                                      C                                        - --------------------------      XXV *2S

                                         0      SpaHina patens
                                                                       Spartina                   ............  ULV. W
                                                                      afterniflora



                  Datum: MLW                              Cross Sections                   County of: Northumberland
                  Adjacent Property Owner,          Proposed Restoration
                   1. Lot 10, C.B. Parks                       John G. Doe                 Sheet 2      of 2
                   2. Lot 12, M.E. Lank                        P.O. Box 123                Date: August 3, 1991
                                                           Tidewater, Va 22222






                                                                 F (A - 6)









                                                  Attachment B
                                               Restoration Order




                          Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1(C) of the Code of Virginia, having received a Sworn
                   Com plaint (Copy Attached), that a violation of Chapter 1, 2.1 or Chapter 2.2 of Title 62.1 of
                   the Code exists, and having determined at a public hearing on                          that
                   restoration is necessary to recover lost resources and prevent further damage, you are hereby
                   ordered to restore the area identified in accordance with specifications provided herein.




                    Site Location:




                    Scope of Restoration:


                    Restoration Monitoring Plan to be submitted by
                                                                               (Date)


                          This order requires the submission and approval of a Restoration Monitoring Plan
                   acceptable to the-         (Wetlands Board or Commission) prior to physical restoration.
                   Once approved, said plan will become a binding condition of this order. A bond or letter of
                   credit payable to                  in the amount of $          , is required as well as a pre-
                   paid contract to ensure the scientific monitoring is completed. Failure to complete the resto-
                   ration so ordered in accordance with an approved Monitoring Plan shall constitute a separate
                   violation of Chapters 1, 2.1 or 2.2 of the Code of Virginia. This Restoration Order shall re-
                   main in affect for the length of the approved Monitoring Plan.

                          Ordered by
                                                        (Wetlands Board Chairman)
                          on                  )19-.


                          Notice served to
                                                        (Signature of Person Notified)
                          on                   19








                                                             F (B - 1)






                                                                                                                 I    NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY          4         vi


                                                                                                                                                               -
                                                                                                                      3 6668 14112905 8
                                                                                                                 1