Shoreline erosion in the Commonwealth of Virginia problems, practices, and possibilities

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

SHORELINE EROSION
IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA:
PROBLEMS, PRACTICES, AND POSSIBILITIES-

Prepared by

Robert J. Byrne, Carl H. Hobbs 111,
N. Bartlett Theberge, Waldon R. Kerns,
Mary Langeland, Janet Scheid,
Neal J. Barber and Randy J. Olthof

for the
Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources
Commonwealth of Virginia

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

Special Report in Applied Marine Science and
Ocean Engineering Number 220 of the

VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE

QH Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
301
V852
no.220
1979

SHORELINE EROSION

IN THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

PROBLEMS, PRACTICES, AND POSSIBILITIES

Prepared by

Robert J. Byrne, Carl H. Hobbs III, and N. Bartlett Theberge

of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Waldon R. Kerns, Mary Langeland and Janet Scheid

of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Neal J. Barber and Randy J. Olthof

of the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission

for the

Office of the Secretary of Commerce and Resources

Commonwealth of Virginia

As a part of

The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program

Planning Activities

1979

FOREWARD

This report, Shoreline Erosion in the Commonwealth of Virginia:

'Problems, Practices, and Possibilities, is a report on the physical,

legal, and economic aspects of shoreline erosion in Virginia.

Although erosion is a physical process, it generally is not perceived

as a problem until it has an economic impact on either an individual,

community, or resource. As management of the impacts of erosion

involves land use, economic, and legal issues as well as a technical

assessment of the problem, an interdisciplinary approach was required.

Authors Byrne and Hobbs are physical scientists with experience and

interest in the workings of the shoreline. Theberge is a lawyer

specializing in marine affairs. Kerns, Langeland, and Scheid are

resource economists and environmental planners; and Barber and Olthof

are land use planners. The division of responsibilities followed the

obvious lines. The physical scientists described the problem and its

causes and provided the technical analysis of the shoreline. The

economists explored the costs of erosion and of combating erosion and

developed the economic decision framework. The planners considered

the institutional arrangements and policies necessary for the rational

treatment of erosion; and the legal experts researched the existing

body of law pertaining to shoreline erosion. The four groups

functioned as a team with continuous interaction and discussion among

all participants.

The document was prepared in three drafts. Draft 1, October

1978, determined the organization and thrust of the final report. It

was a presentation of al 1 information available at that time and was

given very limited circulation for review and critique. Draft 2,

February 1979, was a modification of the earlier draft incorporating

the completed Middlesex County Pilot Study, some of the suggestions

offered to the first draft, and other such additions and alterations

as deemed necessary. The second draft received an extremely limited

distribution as the differences between it and the third or final

,draft were minor. This third or final draft is a revised and edited

version of the second. A uthors Byrne and Hobbs were responsible for

the compilation and editorial continuity of the finished document.

The report was prepared as part of Virginia's Coastal Resources

Management Program as funded by the Federal Office of Coastal Zone

Management, Grant number 04-8-MOl-309. The Virginia Institute of

Marine Science, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, and the Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission each

were acting on sub-contracts from the Office of Commerce and Resources

which administered the overall contract with OCZM.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is the nature of a project such as this that the listed

authors represent only a small fraction of those who participated in

the work. The following is only a partial list of the many other

people who contributed to the research and the writing that went into

this document: Gary F. Anderson, Gary L. Anderson, Sandra Batie, Ted

Howard, Peter Fisher, Lynne Morgan,,Dennis Owen, and Mike Thompson.

Technical support was provided by Charles Alston and Sam White who

were photographer and pilot for the 1978 vertical photography. Drafts

and the final copy of this report were prepared by the VIMS Report

Center.

Several persons including D. W. Budlong (office of the Secretary

of Commerce and Resources) and M. P. Lynch (VIMS), reviewed the drafts

and made many helpful suggestions and comments. Much -of the study

would have been imp6ssible without the active help and participation

of the offices of Middlesex County.

.TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

FOREWARD o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

1.1 The Intent of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
1.2 The Format of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2 THE NATURE OF TIDAL SHORELINE EROSION IN.VIRGINIA 9

2.1 The Erosion Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 The Magnitude of Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

CHAPTER 3 THE PROBLEM OF SHORE EROSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1 The Effects of Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2 The Problem in Light of the Effects . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3 Erosion As a Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Coping With Erosion - The Present . . . . . . . . . . 28

CHAPTER 4 EROSION/ACCRETION AFFECTING CURRENT LAW AND
POLICIES IN VIRGINIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.1 Current Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Shoreline Erosion Policy in Virginia . . . . . . . . 35
4.3 Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

CHAPTER 5 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES-POSSIBILITIES AND CONSTRAINTS. 47

5.1 Elements to be Considered in Formulating a Strategy. 47
5.1.1 Statement of the Erosion Induced Problem . . . . . . 48
5.1.2 Management Goals for a Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.1.3 Technical Assessment of Option . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.1.4 Economic Assessment of Costs and Benefits -
An Economic Decision Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.1.4.1 costs . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . 51
5.1.4.2 Benefits . . . . . * , * * . . . . . . . 55
5.1.4.3 Establishing Values for Current Situ'ation. : . . . . 56
5.1.4.4 Esta "blishing Impact Values for Insurance Programs. . 57
5.1.4.5 Use of Costs and Benefits in Evaluation of
Management Strategies. . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.1.4.6 Evaluation of Policies on Management Strategies . . . 59
5.2 A Guide to Institutional Alternatives . . . . . . . . 59

5.2.1 Public Ownership . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2o2 Regulation and Use Restriction o . o o . 61
5.2o3 Incentive/Disincentive Measures, o o o . o . . . 64
5.2.4 Educational/Advisory Services, . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.3 A Guide to Legal Considerations in Management
Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.3.1 Individual Liability for Downdrift Impacts of
Shoreline Defense Structures . o e o . . . . . . . . 67
5.3o2 State Liability . . . . o o o . . . o . . . . . . . 69
5.3.3 The Taking Issue as it Relates to Set-back Lines
and Other Land use Regulation o o . . . o . o . 76
5.3.3.1 Introduction to the Set-back Concept . . . . . . . . 76
5.3o3o2 Constitutional Analysis . . . . o o . . . . . o . . 77
5.3.3o3 Four Tests Defined . ' * . . . . 80
5o3.3.4 Examination of Virginia C;s; Iawo on*Z;ning' *. . o 82
5.3.3o5 How Open Space Zoning Regulations and Coastal Set-
back Regulations Have Fared in Virginia and Other
States . . . o . . . . . . . o o . . o . . . . . . . 85
5.3.3.6 Tests for Valuation and Compensation Due a Land-
owner When a Taking has Occurred . . . . . . . . . o 91
5.3.3.7 Possible Ways to Avoid the Taking Problem. . o . . . 92

CHAPTER 6 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF
EROSION: A PILOT STUDY IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY. . o . 97

6.1 Details of Procedures for Technical Assessment
of Options . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . 97
6ol.1 Data Acquisition . . . . . . o o . . . . . . . . 97
6.1.2 Data Analysis . . . ' o 110
6.1.3 Results of Physical A;pects*of* @ilo; ;tuody* o oo III
6.2 Application of Economic Decision Framework . . . . o 125
6.2.1 Reach Number I . . . o . . . . . . o . . o . . . . . 129
6.2ol.1 Potential Shoreland Erosion Losses . o . o . .. . 130
6o2ol.2 Assessment of Erosion Control Options . . . o . . . . 131
6.2olo3 Potential Impact From Restriction on Ownership . . . 135
6o2.1.4 Transaction and Administration . . . . . . o . o . . 135
6o2.lo5 Potential Cost of Public Acquisition . . . o . . . . 136
6.2.1.6 Potential Cost of Relocation of Dwelling o . . . . . 137
6.2ol.7 Summary Budget of Costs and Benefits for Reach 1 . . 138
6.2.2 Reach 2 . . o . . o o . . . . o o . . . . . . o o . 144
6.2o2.1 Potential Shoreland Erosion Loss . o o . o . . . . . 145
6o2.2.2 Assessment of Erosion Control Option . . . . . . . o 145
6o2o2.3 Potential Impact from Restriction on Ownership . o o 147
6.2o2.4 Transaction and Administration . * * e o e e * e * o 147
6.2.2o5 Potential Cost of Public Acquisition . . . o . . . . 148
6o2o2.6 Potential Cost for Relocation of Dwelling. . . o . . 148
.6.2o2o7 Summary Budget of Costs and Benefits for Reach 2 . . 148
6o2o3 Reach Number 3 . . . . . . . . . o . o . o . . . . o 151
6.2.3ol Potential Shoreland Erosion Loss . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.2.3.2 Ass'essment of Erosion Control Options . . . . . . . . 152
6o2.3.3 Potential Impact from Restriction on Ownership o . . 154
6.2o3.4 Transaction and Administration . . . . . . . . . o . 154

6.2.3.5 Potential Cost of Public Acquisition . . . . . . . . 155
6.2.3.6 Potential Cost of Relocation of Dwelling . . . . . . 155
6.2.3.7 Summary Budget of Costs and Benefits for Reach 3 155
6.2.4 Summary of Assessment Procedure e * * * . * . * 157
6.3 Financial Factors and Successful Implementation of
a Control Program e 9 . * o . * . . . 9 * .159
6.3.1 Private Expenditures for Erosion Control . . . . . . 159
6- .3.2 Payment of Public Sector Erosion Control Cos ts . . . 161
6.3.2.1 Relationship Between Current Effort, Projected
Erosion Control Costs and Grants-in-Aid . . . . . . . 165
6.3.2.2 Procedure for Estimating Public Costs of Total
Shoreline Control* . . * . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 168
6.4 Application of Study Data to Federal Flood
Insurance Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o .174

CHAPTER 7 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

7.1 Comments . . . . . . . . 179
Individu ' @c@ion*V;r;u; @r;
7.1.1 al atment of the Reach 179
7.1.2 Risk Awareness o . . . . . . . . o . ... . . . 179
7.1.3 Highly Eroding Shorelines-Geographic Areas of
Particular Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
7.1.3.1 Defin',ition of the Erosion Zone . . . . ... . . . . . 180
7.1.3.2 Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . .181
7.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . o o . . . o .182

CHAPTER 8 METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATIONS . . . . . . . . o . . . o185

801 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . 185
8.2 Designation of Coastal Erosion Areas . . . . : . . . 186
8.3 Erosion Abatement Policy Addenda . . . . . . . . . . 186
8A Public Notification of Erosion Hazard . . . . . . . 190
8.5 Mitigation Measures . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

APPENDIX A PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING COSTS AND IMPACT VALUES
TO PROVIDE A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE EROSION CON-
TROL STRATEGIES. . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . o 201

APPENDIX B MEASURES OF FISCAL EFFORT FOR SELECTED COASTAL
LOCALITIES o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . 231

APPENDIX C SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EROSION/
INSURANCE STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE GREAT LAKES
BASIN COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

APPENDIX D GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF EROSION RATES. . 247

APPENDIX E PROPOSED REVISION OF ARTICLE 2.2, �21-11.16 . . . . 257

APPENDIX F SAMPLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT o . . . . 259

APPENDIX G SAMPLE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT o o . 261

Vii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Area Losses Due to Erosion, Circa 1850-1950 . . . . . . . 15

Table 2. Housing Density Along the Virginia Chesapeake Bay
System Shore . . . . . . . . . . . o o . . o . . . 23

Table 3. Shoreline Erosion for Tidewater Virginia, Chesapeake
Bay System . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 0 * . 27

Table 4. Historical Erosion Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table 5. Shoreline Structures . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . 124

Table 6. Artificially Stabilized Areas, Stingray Point Area . . . 128

Table 7. Fiscal Effort for Coastal Counties and Cities in
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table 8. Impact of Costs for Selected Options on Current
Fiscal Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Table 9. Projections of Class I and Class II Areas in
Middlesex County with Erosion Problems . . . . . . . * 171

Table 10. Projected Costs of Implementing Selected Control
Options for the Tidal Shoreline in Middlesex -
County, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. Topographic Map of Middlesex County Study Area . . . . . 99

Figure 2. Vertical Photograph of a Portion of Segment 3 of
Reach I . 0 a . 0 . . . . 0 0 . . . . . . . . 0 102

Figure 3. Oblique View of a Portion of Segment 3 of Reach I . . . . 102

Figure 4. Vertical Photograph of the Area Near the Mouth of
Bush Park Creek, Segments I and 2, Reach I . . . . . . 104

Figure 5. Vertical Photograph of the Area Near the Duck
Ponds, Segments 4, 5, and 6, Reach I . . . . . . . . . 104

Figure 6. Vertical Photograph of Segment 3, Reach 2, Near
Grinels . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 106

Figure 7. An Oblique View of the Spit West of Stingray Point,
Reach 3 . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 8. Vertical Photograph of the Stingray Point Area,
Reach 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 9. An Oblique View of a Portion of the Area in Figure 8 107

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Intent of the-Study

Tidal shoreline erosion is a pernicious problem in Virginia and

the mitigation of its impacts is by no means a simple matter either

technically, legally, economically, or institutionally.. However, the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and its amendments of 1976 have

afforded the opportunity to examine the issues and the possibilities

for mitigation of erosion impacts in the light of serious issues. The

basic issues include the role of the State or locality in controlling

human behavior along the shoreline of the Commonwealth, and the

justification for the expenditure of public funds to protect private

property. Moreover, there is a spectrum of legal issues associated

with actions along the shoreline and with various management

strategies.

The basic intdnt of this report is to provide a framework for

decision making by,the legislative branch and/or executive branch

policy makers. This framework provides a mechanism to determine the

costs and benefits"for possible alternate approaches derived from the

technical assessment of the problem. In addition, the report provides

an examination of the legal issues which might arise.

The final program to cope with mitigation of the impacts of

erosion should be tailored to meet the needs of the Commonwealth of

Virginia, yet at the same time be an approvable program in the view of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The need to

fulfill the federal requirement is pragmatic; if successful in this,

federal monies may be available to, at least partially, fund the

implementation of the program. The federal requirements are, as

listed in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41, March 1978.

Rules and Regulations
923.26 Shoreline Erosion/Mitigation Planning.

(a) Requirement. In order to meet the require-
ments of subsection 305 (b)(9) of the Act and to
coordinate these requirements with those subsections
305(b)(3) and 306(c)(9), States must include a planning
process that can assess the effects of shoreline
erosion. Evaluation must include assessment of ways to
mitigate, control or restore areas adversely affected
by erosion. This process must include:

(1) A method for assessing the e ffects of shore-
line erosion;
(2) Articulation of State policies pertaining to
erosion, including policies regarding preferences
for non-structural, structural and/or no controls;
(3) A method f or designating areas for erosion
control, migitation and/or restoration as areas of
particular concern or areas for preservation and
restoration, if appropriate;
(4) Procedures for managing the effects of
erosion, including non-structural procedures; and
(5) An identification of legal authorities,
funding programs and other techniques that can be
used to meet management needs.

(b) Comment. Statutory Citation, Subsection
305(b)(9):

The management program for each coastal state
shall include ... (9) A planning process for (A)
assessing the effects of shoreline erosion (however
caused), and (B) studying and evaluating ways to
control, or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to
restore areas adversely affected by such erosion.

(1) The basic purpose in developing a process to
evaluate and, if appropriate, to - control and
mitigate shoreline erosion is to assure consider-
ation of erosion impacts within the purview of a
Statets management program. Since the specific
planning requirements called for in this section
are closely related to the broader requirements of
areas of particular concern and areas for preser-
vation and restoration, many of the requirements
called for in paragraph (a) above can be met by
completing the work called for in 923.21 and
923.24.

(c) Comment. With respect to the requirements of
(a)(1) above) States should consider the following:
(1) Loss of land along the shoreline or along estuarine
banks, whether this loss is caused by actions of man or
by natural forces, and whether these actions are
regularly occurring, cyclical, or one-time events; and
(2) the cause of these effects (e.g., man-made vs.
natural forces); the effects of erosion on adjacent
land and water uses as well as the impacts of
mitigation or restoration of eroded areas on adjacent
shorelines, littoral drift, and other natural
ecological processes such as accretion.

The purpose of such assessments will be to
determine how, if at all, States will want to handle
erosion control, mitigation and/or restoration.

(d) Comment. In addressing the requirements of
(a)(2) above, States should consider non-structural and
structural options as well as the possibility of
allowing erosion and accretion to continue to occur
without management intervention. It is not the intent
of these planning requirements to imply that an
appropriate State response to erosion necessarily
requires control (either of a structural or
non-structural nature). In some locations along a
State's coast, it may be appropriate to articulate a
policy of non-control, given the cause of erosion, the
configuration of the coastline or the adverse impacts
that may result from control techniques. An example of
where a policy of non-control may be appropriate is
along barrier islands where there is substantial
natural erosion and accretion due to littoral drift.
In cases where State policy is not to control erosion,
either in selected locations or along the entire
coastline, the rationale for such policy should be
stated explicitly. In evaluating ways to control or

lessen erosion impacts, either through non-structural
or structural techniques, States should take into
account such considerations as shoreline configuration,
extent of the problem, costs of alternative solutions,
and incorporation of existing management techniques.
States also should take particular account of the
National Flood Insurance Progam (24 CFR 1909 et seq.),
and regulations of the Federal Insurance Administration
on flood-related erosion-prone areas (24 CFR 910.5).

(e) Comment. In addressing the requirements of
(a)(3) above with respect to areas for preservation or
restoration, States may consider complete re-establish-
ment of the pre-erosion shoreline or other more limited
rebuilding of an eroded area. Both natural and
developed areas may be considered for restoration
purposes* Due to restrictions on the use of section
306 funds (see 923.95), no means of restoration
proposed by States may be eligible for section 306
funding, or funding under other sections of. the Act.
Despite this restriction on the use of section 306
funds,- States should not feel restricted as to the
means of restoration proposed as part of the management
program and should give particular attention to co-
ordination of shoreline erosion management of ob-
jectives with funding programs pursuant to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Control Program
(33 U.S.C. 426 et seq.) and the Hurricane Protection
Program (33 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) and other statutes as
may be appropriate.

M Comment. State coastal zone management
programs that' are submitted and approved prior to
October 1, 1978, may submit this planning element as a
program amendment by, but no later than, September 30,
1978, or this element may be included as part of the
basic program submission submitted and approved prior
to October 1. 1978. State coastal zone management
programs submitted prior to October 1$ 1978, but
approved on or after that date, must include this
planning element as part of the basic program
submission. State coastal zone managements submitted
for approval after October 1, 1978, must include this
element as part of the basic program submission.

The Federal requirements, while quite broad in view, do require

an in depth examination of the problem. Within the Virginia Coastal

Resources Management Program "Highly Eroded Areas.", those areas

experiencing erosion rates greater than two feet per year, have been

preliminarily identified as hazardous. Those areas, when finally

designated as hazardous, will require closer attention and presumably,

greater,state oversight in management than those with lesser erosion

rates.

Any examination of the problem of mitigation.of the impacts of

erosion requires a statement of the impacts and the ramifications of

mitigation. In Virginia the impacts of tidal shoreline erosion are:

1) Loss of fastland property and improvements thereon,

2) Loss of taxable lands within lcoalities,

3) Influx of the eroded sediments into the estuarine

system and its flanking tidal creek entrances, and

4) Supply of sand to beaches fringing the Bay system

and the ocean shoreline.

While the first three impacts may be perceived as disbenefits the

fourth "impact" is a definite benefit as fastland erosion is the

principal supply of sand to beaches fringing the bay. The physical

importance of beaches will be established in the following chapters.

The important point is that strategies involving inhibition or

prohibition of erosion also involve the loss of sand supply and

consequent diminution of beaches, a principal re source.of the shore

system.

Management of the impacts of erosion involve either one or a

combination of two broad strategies:

1) Non-structural controls such as construction set-back lines
or other zoning mechanisms which attempt to prevent
victimization of property improvements from erosion.

2) Structural controls which attempt to inhibit the physical
process of the fastland.

Within the context of these two broad strategies legislators and

policy makers face the nexus with legal issues: non-structural

regulation faces the issue of "taking" while any publicly funded

assistance for relief of the costs of structural control faces the

issue of "why, and to what extent" should the "public" relieve the

cost burden of the few who own shoreline property and who are thereby

frequently viewed as "privileged". The philosophical foundations for

argument of these fundamental issues is left to the legislative bodies

and executive policy makers. To us the philosophical foundation rests

in the balance between points of view, perhaps equally arguable:

1) The shoreline, a limited resource, is intrinsically a public
resource in the stewardship of temporary landlords. As
such, the public has a vested interest to manage, and to at
least partially finance, the prudent use, preservation and
development of that resource. It would appear that this
view may also embody an obligation to public access since
public participation in financing is granted.

2) The government has the obligation to prevent and/or control
its citizens from victimization by hazards to life and
property.

3) A third possible case is that wherein protection of private
property results in the benefit through increased tax
revenues to a local, larger public and to the state's
populace at large. This case may be exemplified by those
areas in Virginia dependent upon the shoreside tourist
industry and services thereto. However, these areas embody
the greatest damage risks due to demand for shorefront

facilities and the consequent temptations to develop too
close to the erosion and flooding jeopardy zone. These
cases thus require particular attention.

Our task is to supply insight into the problem and tools (and the

limitations of those tools) which might be used in reaching a

decision. The tools are imperfect, but the decisions cannot await

perfect tools.

1.2 The Format of the Report

Chapter 2 i s an explanation of the principal processes causing

shoreline erosion and a description of the magnitude of shoreline

erosion as revealed by comparing shoreline positions over a one

century time period.

Chapter 3 addresses the problem of erosion in the light of its

effects and discusses the preliminary designation of hazard areas in

terms of erosion rates. It also reviews the current status of how

private property owners cope with the erosion problem. This review

indicates that a coordinated community response over integral

shoreline segments-is preferred to the existing piecemeal approach.

Chapter 4 is a review of existing policies in Virginia. In

addition, this chapter surveys the principal Federal programs dealing

with the mitigation of erosion's impacts.

Possible management strategies are presented in Chapter 5. The

first sections of'the chapter deal with the kinds of technical and

economic information and analyses required to select the most

appropriate strategy from a set of possible strategies. Later

sections outline an economic decision making framework which incorpo-

rates the economic information and costs for various treatments of the

shoreline. As management strategies must be selected with an

awareness of potential legal issues, analyses of three particularly

germane issues are presented: individual liability for downdrift

impacts; liability of the State for adverse effects of shoreline

protection; and finally the issue of "taking".

Chapter 6 is a discussion of the Middlesex County Pilot Study.

The discussion includes the details of the technical procedures, the

technical analysis and formulation of management options, and the

application of the economic decision framework to the suggested

options.

Chapter 7 contains several recommendations that, if implemented,

should serve to decrease the problems caused by erosion. Chapter 8

contains several specific suggestions for the implementation of the

recommendations.

CHAPTER

THE NATURE OF TIDAL SHORELINE EROSION IN VIRGINIA

2.1 The Erosion Processes.

The Commonwealth, having a tidal shoreline exceeding 5,000 miles

in length, is graced with a wide diversity of shore types which

include the low-lying barrier islands of the Eastern Shorej the ocean

front headland-barrier spit of southeastern Virginia, and the shores

of Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries which range from high bluffs to

tidal marshes. To obtain a true perspective of shore erosion as a

natural phenomenon, one must examine the recent geologic setting of

the region.

The principal natural processes responsible for erosion are the

long term changes in the level of the sea, the waves generated by

local or distant winds and short term water level fluctuations

occurring during storms. About 14,000 years ago the polar ice caps,

formed indirectly from water of the world's oceans, were extensive,

and sea level was about 300 feet lower than its present elevation.

The ocean shorelines off what is now Virginia were then located near

the edge of the continental shelf, about 60 nautical miles from the

entrance to Chesapeake Bay. Of course, the Bay and its rivers were

not estuaries at that time, but rather were an upland drainage network

leading to the sea. The gorges of the rivers were deeper than now

because the fluviai action tended to scour channels as the rivers

flowed down to the sea. As the ice caps began to melt and recede, the

elevation of the sea started to rise. This world-wide rise of sea

level is called the eustatic sea level rise. Local changes of

relative sea level, however, are the result of two components, the

eustatic sea level rise and the isostatic changes which are due to

local subsidence or uplift of the earth's crust. According to Rosen

(1976), the best estimates for local, relative sea level rise are

obtained from comparison of long term mareograph data. Using data

from Hicks and Crosby (1974) and Holdal and Morrison (1974), Rosen

computed rates of sea level change for several Chesapeake Bay System

locations. His results varied from an average rise to 21 inches per

century at Old Point Comfort in the City of Hampton to a fall of 1.8

inches per century in the City of Richmond.

An "average" for sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay area is

about 0.01 feet per year or I foot per century (Hicks, 1972). This

average includes shorter term variations of several years duration

which may be appreciably larger or smaller. Although this rate of sea

level rise is small its effect is dramatic. Because the fringes of

the ocean and the Bay are, generally, gently sloping each decade

brings constant encroachment against the fastland. Of course, the

gentle action of sea level rise does not by itself erode the fastland

but it constantly elevates the point of application of the erosive

forces of the waves.

An analogy with a sawmill is fitting. Sea level rise represents

the belt advancing the saw blade while wave action represents the

cutting teeth.

Another important aspect of sea level rise is its effect on the

sedimentation.characteristics of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary

rivers. When sea level was lower the fluvial action of the freshwater

rivers tended to carry sand and silt to the edge of the sea. Todayj

however, the coarse grained materials, sand and gravel are deposited

in the tributary reaches near the fall line which separates the

Piedmont from the Coastal Plain. The fall line extends approximately

along the Route 1-95 corridor through Richmond, Fredericksburg, and

Washington. Moreover, saline oceanic waters now enter the Bay and

tributaries. The net effect of the circulation between the entering

oceanic waters and freshwater introduced from the rivers (James, York,

etc.) is to trap the fine grained sediments, the silts and clays,

within the estuaries. Thus, very little of the sediment delivered to

the estuary system, either from the tributary freshwater rivers or

from shoreline erosion, escapes from the mouth of the Chesape ake Bay

into the ocean.

When visiting the ocean shores of Virginia an observer may notice

wave conditions ranging between "fair weather" and those of a storm.

Fair weather waves are characterized by generally well defined gentle

undulations which break on the beach face with apparent regularity.

These waves are generated by wind fields relatively far offshore and

then travel to distant shores. During a storm, however, strong local

winds generate waves which nix with those generated offshore. The

result is an apparent maelstrom with waves of all sizes and shapes.

Generally speaking, "fair weather" waves (called swells) carry sand

from the immediate,nearshore bottom and deposit it on the beach.

Storm waves, on the other hand, tend to remove sand from the beach

itself and to deposit it in nearshore waters in accumulations called

bars. When the fair weather swell waves return, the material stored

in the bars is driven back to the beach face. Thus, there is a

periodic shift of sand between the beach and the nearshore. Another

very important aspect of wave behavior on beaches is that waves drive

sand along the shore. This occurs when, as is usually the case, the

breaking wave crests approach at an angle to the shoreline. This

action of the waves provides the principal supply of sand which works

along the shore and is deposited in the entrances to inlets and

creek$.

An observer visiting the shore of the Chesapeake Bay and the

wider parts of the tributary estuaries would witness the same wave

behavior except the wave heights would be smaller and the time between

successive waves shorter. This is due to the fact that the degree of

wave development is strongly dependent on fetch, the "over the water"

distance the wind blows. of course the distances across the Bay are

much smaller than those found on our ocean coast.

The beaches fringing our coastline are natural formations created

by wave action as the waves expend their energy. Beaches are, in

fact, recognized as the most efficient dissipators of wave energy.

Thus, aside from their intrinsic attractiveness to man, beaches are

protective structures which inhibit erosion of the fastland.

During storms (northeasters) and hurricanes, the strong winds

push additional water against the ocean coast and into the Bay. As a

result, the normal rise and fall of tide oscillates around an elevated

mean water level. While the storm surge generally ranges between one

and two feet, it may be several feet in magnitude. For example, the

extremely severe northeast storm of March 1962, resulted in water

elevations at Norfolk of 6.1 feet higher than predicted.

Aside from the obvious hazard of flooding low-lying areas the

surge permits the erosive action of the waves to attack the fastland,

directly above the usual buffer provided by the beach. The effect is

further accentuated if the storm occurs in conjunction with the

higher, or spring, tides of the lunar month.

Tidal currents, the water movements resulting from the rise and

fall of the tide, play a secondary role in shoreline erosion since the

current speeds are small except near inlets where their influence is a

dominate force. Away from inlets the tidal currents tend to move the

sand stirred up by waves slowly along the coast. In some areas within

the estuaries, local conditions result in strong currents not

associated with inlets and which directly influence bank erosion. One

example of this occurs at bends in the rivers.

It is of interest to see how these elements interact during the

passage of a typical northeast storm. With the onset of the storm the

northeast or easterly winds generate large waves which impinge on the

open coast beaches. Because of the large, steep waves and

accompanying storm surge large volumes of sand are removed from the

ocean beaches. Some of this material will be moved offshore for

temporary storage in sand bars and some will be driven alongshore to

storage in inlets or to beach areas on the fringe of that storm's

influence. Within the Bay and tributary rivers the intensity of

erosion will depend on the path and strength of the storm. When the

local easterly winds in the Bay are sustained at 20 mph or greater the

waves become quite large and the attack is focused on the western side

of Chesapeake Bay and the lower reaches of the tributary estuaries.

After the storm center has passed offshore or to the north, the winds

shift to the northwest quadrant. These winds, accompanied by a clear

sky, are frequently stronger and of longer duration than those

experienced during the ",storm". Now the ocean front beaches tend to

recover some of the sand from the offshore bar. But in the Bay the

focus of wave attack simply shifts. Now the easternside of the Bay

receives wave attack. Because the major tributary estuaries have a

northwest-southeast orientation their banks also receive substantial

wave attack during northwest winds.

2.2 The Magnitude of Erosion.

To gain a first order insight of the magnitude of shoreline

changes within the Bay System, Byrne and Anderson (1977) compared the

earliest reliable maps (1850's) with a series of 1940-1960 maps and

charts for 2,365 miles of the Bay system. Byrne (1973) made a similar

study of the barrier islands and the Corps of Engineers (1970) studied

the coastline between Cape Henry and the Virginia - North Carolina

border. The summarized results (Table 1) show that over 28,000 acres

(about 44 square miles) of land.were lost during the recent past.

century (1850-1950).

Table 1

Areas Losses Due to Erosion Circa 1850-1950

Atlantic Coast
SE Virginia 27 miles - 40 acres

Atlantic Coast
Eastern Shore 84 miles - 7,228 acres

Virginia Chesapeake Bay
.and Tributaries 2,365 miles -21,079 acres

Total 2,476 miles -28047 acres

The ocean coastline segments show characteristically different

erosion responses than the Bay system. The barrier islands are, for

the most part, sand starved islands segmented by tidal inlets. The

net littoral drift is directed to the south. The northernmost islands

(Wallops, Assawoman, Metomkin, and Cedar) have retreated in a fashion

so that the new shoreline parallels the older. The erosion rates on

Metomkin and Cedar Islands are greater than the other two. The

central section of the island chain., Parramore, Hog and Cobb Islands,

are flanked by deep inlets which strongly influence their gross

behavior. Over recent times these islands have accreted on the

northern ends due to local trapping of sand which bypasses the

adjacent inlet. The retreat of the southern portions of the islands

has been dramatic (up to 50 feet per year on Hog Island). The

southern section of chain, ending with Smith Island@ have retreated in

a nearly parallel fashion, Smith Island at about 25 feet per year.

Meanwhile, Fishermans Island, which is at-the toe of the peninsula,

has accreted to a four fold increase in area during the century

studied.

The ocean coastline of Virginia south of Cape Henry is

characterized by zones of alternating shoreline advancement and

recession. If the erosion history of total shoreline length between

Cape Henry and the North Carolina border (27.4 miles) is averaged over

the long term, the annual recession rate is about 0.7 feet. Although

the average erosion rate is relatively small the entire ocean shore

front is subject to severe erosion during northeast storms and

hurricanes. Experience in the past has demonstrated high property

damage.

The Lower Chesapeake Bay shoreline and that of its tributary

estuaries, the James, York, Piankatank, Rappahannock, and Potomac

Rivers, is highly dissected by entrances to creeks so that there is a

high degree of variability in shoreline response within and between

adjacent segments. Again referring to gross average the eastern and

western shores of the Chesapeake Bay lost about 12 acres per mile per

century. The southern sides of the tributaries have experienced

somewhat greater erosion due to the more direct attack from

northwesterly winds, Although individual segments of the shoreline

have experienced erosion rates exceeding 7 feet per year, one or two

feet per year is more common. For the 2,365 miles of Bay system

shoreline measured, the average erosion rate was 0.7 feet per year.

Slaughter (1964) estimated that the Chesapeake Bay has one of the

nation's highest rates of erosion for tidewater areas.

The products of shoreline erosion, sand, silt and clay,

contribute a significant fraction of the total sediment load trapped

in the Bay System. Byrne and Anderson (1977) estimated that the total

amount of over 27-0,000,000 cubic yards of material was eroded from the

Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay system between 1850 and 1950.

This volume is-about one third the volume of water in the entire York

River estuary. The sand fraction derived from erosion,is the princi-

pal source of beach materials. The silt and clay fractions, however,

contribute to the general sedimentation of the channels and flanks of

the estuaries. Although the volume of suspended sediment entering the

Virginia estuary system has not been determined precisely,

interpretation of available records indicates that deposition from the

upland drainage basins of the Potomac, Rappahannock, York and James

River is about 4 million tons per year. If we assume that 30 percent

of the material derived from shore erosion is silt and clay, then it

appears that about 1 million tons per year are injected into the

system via shoreline erosion. Thus, the total silt/clay deposition is

about 5 million tons per year, of which 20 percent is derived from

shore erosion.

References Cited

Byrne, R. J. 1973'. Recent Shoreline History of Virginia's Barrier
Islands, Virginia Journal of Science, Vol. 24, no. 3 (abs)

Byrne, R. J. & G. L. Anderson. 1977. Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater
Virginia. SRAMSOE No. 111, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, VA. 102 p.

Hicks, S. D. 1972. On the Classification of Trends of Long Period
Sea Level Series. Shore and Beach, April, p. 20-23.

Hicks, S. D. & JO E. Crosby. 1974. Trends and variability yearly
mean sea level, 1893-1902. NOAA Tech. Memo Nos. 13, 14 p.

Holdal, S. Wo & N. Morrison. 1974. Regional investigational vertical
crustal movements in the U.S., using precise relevety and
mareograph data. Tectonophysics, vol. 23, p. 373-390.

Rosen, P. S. 1970. Morphology and processes of the Virginia
Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
College of William and Mary 313 p.

Slaughter, T. H. 1964. Shore Erosion in Tidewater Maryland: Shore
and Beach, Volo 31 n. 32, 15 p.

U.S. Army Corps. of Engineer, Norfolk District. 1970o Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Protection, Virginia Beach, VA:
Appendices.

CHAPTER 3

THE PROBLEM OF SHORELINE EROSION

3.1 The Effects of Erosion

Tidal shoreline erosion is a problem only because it challenges

our occupation of the shore zone and use of contiguous waters and

subaqueous bottoms. The attractions to the shores are manifold and

the pressures for occupation are growing. The principal effects of

tidal shore erosion in Virginia are, without rank of position:

.1) Loss of fastland property and improvements thereon,

2) Loss of taxable lands within localities,

3) Influx of""eroded sediments into the estuarine system and its

flanking tidal creek entrances, and

4) Principal supply of sand to beaches fringing the Bay system

and ocean shoreline.

The first two effects are generally perceived as adverse impacts.

The third effect, while a natural consequence of shore erosion, may be

perceived as a disbenefit since the fine grained sediments contribute

to the shoaling of navigational waterways, and the silting of oyster

rocks whereas th6-sand size materials may deposit in the entrances to

feeder creeks., thereby reducing navigability. The fourth effect, the

supply of sand to@the fringing beaches, is decidedly a beneficial

aspect of shore erosion. Within the Chesapeake Bay system and along

the ocean shoreline the principal source of beach material is sand

derived from fastland erosion. This fact complicates strategies to

alleviate the impacts of erosion because reduction of the sediment

sources by shoreline protection structures diminishes the sand supply

available to adjacent beaches.

3.2 The Problem in Light of the Effects

In viewing the problem of shore erosion, it is necessary to

contrast the oceanic segments of the shoreline with those of the Bay

System. For the most part the barrier islands of the Eastern Shore,

aside from Wallops Islands which is owned by the federal government

and used by NASA, are held by either private, state, or federal

concerns as a natural preserve. While light recreational use of the

islands is likely, erosion per se, will not be a problem as far as

hazards to property improvements are concerned. In a sense the

barrier islands may be viewed as a protective barrier to the mainland

spine of the Eastern Shore. While still susceptible to flooding

during extreme storms and hurricanes, the eastern edge of the spine is

protected from significant erosion. A potential exception to this is

the region adjacent to Metomkin Bay where the protective spit has been

breached and wave penetration into the Bay is increasing.

The coastline between Cape Henry and the state border is varied.

The beach-tourism/residential zone of Virginia beach between Cape

Henry and Rudee Inlet is established and the management goal is

obvious: To maintain the beach as the economic base of the tourist

industry. Thus far, and in spite of trials, this goal has been met.

The cost of the maintenance will continue to rise. The Sandbridge

region, where development is private, is subject to storm flooding and

deflation due to overwash. There is increasing acceptance of the fact

that the ocean shoreline is dynamic and frontal losses are expected.

Development, nonetheless, proceeds perilously close to the beach and

within the dunes. South of Sandbridge, the shoreline is a natural

preserve variously under State or Federal auspices.

The southern end of Chesapeake Bay from Cape Henry to Willoughby

Spit and the Bay frontage of the City of Hampton experiences partial

oceanic conditions gated by the mouth of Bay and the long fetch to, the

north. Because of the moderate to high residential and tourism

development these'shorelines are subject to high erosion risks during

storms. A significant fraction of these are also subject to the risk

of tidal flooding.

While occupancy of the ocean shore zone is an accepted hazard,

within the Chesapeake Bay System erosion is perceived in a different

way; the inevitability of loss is not granted. Erosion of the

shoreline is perceived as a highly personal battle. The average

property owner does not perceive sedimentation of the estuaries as a

problem (although he may justify an erosion control permit application

by citing this as a secondary benefit).

The deposition of the erosion products in the Bay System does, no

doubt, have some impact on the economic resources of the system.

Sedimentation on'productive oyster grounds is one example. The cost

of maintaining dredged navigation. channels and the cost of dredged

material displacement should, in part, also be considered a cost of

erosion. A problem arises in specifying how much shoaling at a given

site is due to products from shoreline erosion. Given the present

state of knowledge about sediment circulation, the best one can say is

that shoreline erosion is a proximal cause of deposition on the flanks

of the river. It is doubtful that the state of the art will ever

permit exact specification of the amount of silt and clay from an

eroding bluff that will reach a specific deposition site. Moreover,

it is recognized that resuspension by wave action stirs the sediments

on the flanks and redistributes materials to more distant locations.

Before assessing the magnitude of critical erosion (defined

herein as greater than 2 feet per year with endangered pro perty

improvements) it is of interest to examine the occupation of the Bay

System shoreline. 'Housing density per shoreline mile was approxi-

mated by tabulating the structures within 200 feet of the shoreline,

as shown on 1968 U.S.G.S. Topographic maps (see Table 2).

Although these data were from dated source material, the current

conclusion remains that most of the shoreline is sparsely settled.

The density class 26-30 houses per mile represents an averaged

individual frontage of 200 feet or less. If one considers areas with

this or greater housing densities (including "cities") as "developed"

areas, the total mileage of "developed" shoreline is 158 miles.

The length of critical shoreline erosion as estimated from VIMS'

Shoreline Situation Reports indicates that approximately 12 miles of

TABLE 2

HOUSING DENSITY ALONG THE

VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY SYSTEM SHORE

Housing Density Class
(Structures Per Mile) Number of Miles

0- 5 2,314

6-10 378

11-15 171

16-20 98

21-25 65

26-30 34

31-35 16

36-40 9

41-45 2

*City 91
Total 3,184 miles

Individual structures not shown on maps
in areas designated as densely developed
or city.

shoreline within the Bay System show historical (1850-1950) erosion

rates greater than 2 feet per year plus endangered property

improvements. Assessment by the Corps of Engineers (Baltimore

District, 1976), indicates approximately 26 miles of critical

residential shoreline. (The difference is attributed to the Corps'

use of an erosion rate of greater than 1.5 feet per year.) At first

glance the relatively low length of "critical" erosion shoreline

leaves the impression that erosion is not a serious problem. The

numbers are approximate, however, and do not give a complete picture

of potential losses of improvements to property. Considering only 12

miles of critical shoreline the protection of that length at $40 per

foot is over 2.5 million dollars. The comparison between "critically"

eroding shoreline and the housing density distribution indicates that

most development has occurred along shorefronts experiencing low or

moderate erosion rates. Aerial observation of the Virginia.shoreline

corroborates that most development occurs within fringing embayments

and large creek sytems.

Until recently no detailed studies have been performed to

estimate the value of eroded property or the loss of tax base for

various localities. However, a limited economic study was performed

(The Virginia Tidal Riverbank Erosion Survey, 1962) for 951 miles of

shoreline which included the north and south shores of the

Rappahannock and 292 miles of the Potomac. This study considered

erosion during the 47-year period, 1909-1956, and used estimated

property values for 1960. For the study area considered, about 1,335

acres were lost during the 47-year period with a value of about

$117,000. While these losses do not appear large (about $90 per acre

or $123 per mile), it must be remembered that erosion is, in fact,

highly localized. Moreover, shorefront property value has

dramatically escalated since 1960.

A later section of this report includes an economic analysis of

the real and potential effects of shoreline erosion on a limited area.

An increased level of understanding of the economics of shoreline

erosion should improve the ability to select a satisfactory strategy

for coping with the problem.

3.3 Erosion As A Hazard

While tidal shoreline erosion in Virginia has not been a direct

cause of loss of life, significant property losses have occurred along

many segments of the shoreline. The "Ash Wednesday" storm of March

1962 caused widespread damage along the coastline of Virginia. As

recently as April 1978 a northeast storm caused such substantial

damage to the Oceaii View - Willoughby Spit section of Norfolk and to

other coastal reaches of Virginia that the area was declared a

disaster area.

During major storms lower lying areas generally experience the

joint hazards of erosion and flooding. In such cases the damage

levels may be extreme.

As indicated in the Introduction , Highly Eroding Shorelines"

have been identified as a Geographical Areas of Particular Concern in

the Virignia Coastal Resources Management Plan. As such, these areas

will require particular attention for consideration of alleviating the

impacts of erosion. As an interim designation, those shoreline

reaches subject to an erosion rate greater than 2 feet per year have

.been classified as "Highly Eroding Shorelines". The erosion rate of

greater than 2 feet per year was selected as the criterion because it

significantly exceeds the average erosion rate for the Bay System

shoreline which as determined by Byrne and Anderson (1977) was

approximately 0.7 feet per year. Therefore, selection of shoreline

erosion rates greater than 2 feet per year represents those shoreline

segments which have experienced erosion rates significantly greater

than the average erosion rate. Table 3 indicates the erosion rate

versus affected mileage for the various counties within the Chesapeake

Bay Sy@jtem according to Byrne and Anderson (1977). Within the

Chesapeake Bay System, some 243 miles of shoreline are so affected.

of these, about 60 miles are marsh shoreline. With the inclusion of

the ocean shorefront the total increases to about 330 miles of which

about 120 miles is marsh or low barrier island.

It is very important to note that this delineation is based upon

a comparison of mean high water line positions designated on map

series generated in the 1850s and a series surveyed between 1950-1968.

It ages not identify areas which were stabilized in the interim or

qubsequent period. In addition, a more appropriate delineation would

be that of the retreat rate of the bluff line or fastland boundary of

upland vegetation in non-bluff areas. This is the case because the

water line can fluctuate markedly due to seasonal or long term

modulations of sand on the beach. Bluff retreat or fastland boundary

Table 3

S
,HORELINE EROSTON' I@ATE@ FOR rR(:[%,TA
CUSAPKANE BAY S)'@;TFM

Erosion ates R-teS
(Ft. /Yr. Miles of E,roding Shoreline '5 F 1: /Yr.
Ra t 0 L, ng Ll
lCounty 0-1.0 1.1-2.0 2.1-3.0 3.1-4.0 4.1-5.0 (Ft. /Yr. Q'Iilcs)

*Accomack 0.3 18.5 10.6 6.6 6.1 32.6 0.3
20.0 3.0

Caroline 3.5 3.5

Charles City 6.1 11.6 1.1

Chesterfield 3.6 5.1 0.5 20.7 3.9

Essex 1.7 11.5 13.4 9.1 0.9

Gloucester 24.9 21.8 8.5 1.4 0.7

Hampton 1.9 3.1 2.4 0.9 1.9 6.4 2.5

Henrico 0.6 1.7 6.1 0.2

*Isle of Wight 3.9 12.9 1.4 7.0

James City 2.7 17.0

*King George 7.0 1.7

King and Queen 1.8 2.2

King William 0.8

Lancaster 1.7 12.1 7.2 0.4 1.7 7.9
5.6 0.8
6.0 n.5
r1.6 1.0
5.1 0.7

Mathews 1.9 15.1 12.7 2.1 3.5 30.9 0.1
S.0 0.5
7.1 3.6

Middlesex 1.6 16's 4.1 3.7 0.6 6.5 0.9
6 1.8

-New Kent 1.1 4.6

Newport News 2.6 6.3 0.5

*Norfolk 3.0 0.7

*Northampton 1.1 4.5 8.3 3.1 2.4 5.7 1.8
.7.0 1.3

*Northumberland 1.6 8.8 !0.3 5.7 8.0 5.2 2.4
7.1 0.4
6.1 3.3
10.6 0.6
5.7 '1.3

Prince George 6.8 16.4 2.0

*Richmond 0.5 8.5 9.7 2.0

*Suffolk 1.6 1.3

Spotsylvania 0.5 1.9

Surry 0.3 15.8 2.5 11.8 3.8

*Virginia Beach 6.0

*Westmoreland 2.3 5.0 11.3 7.1 1.5

York 9.1 21.8 5.0 6.0 7.4 0.6

Total (Miles) 82.9 258.1 115.2 55.1 33.3 39.4

CUMULATTVE MILES (IF E POS T n,,,,
+ Doe@ not incitide Fairfax, Prince
Erosion Rates William, and Stafford Co-tics
(Ft./Yr.) >0 >1 >2 >3 >4 >5 for which tnere was no data.

TncludL
miles of s ejtilv a portion of the
Shoreline 584.0 501.1 243.0 127.8 72.7 39.4

Data frop: "Shoreline Erosion in J'idcwater Virginia", Tlvrr-e and AnderSOTI, Sperial Report in
Applied Marine Science and Ocean !@ngineerinlg Niiwi,er 1 11 of tbe [email protected] T@Stitute
of 102 p.ve.: ',17'
2@

retre.at, on the other hand, generally represents the seaward limit of

potential occupation or development. The present designation of areas

having "Highly Eroding Shorelines" is therefore considered

preliminary. Refined and more appropriate criteria for final

designation are presented in the Recommendations in Chapter 7.

3.4 Coping With Erosion - The Present

.At the present time the Commonwealth does not have a coherent

program to alleviate the impacts of erosion for private property

owners. Mitigation of the erosion impact has been the responsibility

of the individual, shorefront-property owner. In some cases, the

property owners have moved their residences back from the shore.

However, by far most have installed shorefront structures to reduce or

stop erosion. Several problems arise from this piecemeal approach.

1) In many cases the actions of an individual may exacerbate
the erosion problem of adjacent property owners by trapping
the littoral drift supply and/or by localized effects at the
ends of structures.

2) Because various shorefront property owners may treat their
individual lots at different times, interaction among
adjacent or nearby structures may result in less effective
erosion control.

3) Because individual property owners may select the structural
approach for their property on the basis of intuition, their
own observations, or on putside advice from people with
varying degrees of expertise, many reaches represent a
smorgasbord of structural methods. Frequently the mixed
methods do not interact favorably for uniform protection.

4) Because shoreline protection is expensive, some property
owners accept the lowest cost proposals only to find later
that poor quality construction has resulted in loss of their
total investment. At present there are no minimum standards
for erosion abatement construction. Furthermore, while many
of these structures require State or Federal permits, the

permitting agencies do not, at present, formally examine the
adequacy of design or construction details of the proposed
structures.

5) Once installed, virtually all structures require maintenance
for long term effectiveness. As individual lot owners
change, maintenance is not kept up, leading to premature
loss or replacement of the structure.

Rather than the chaotic approach illustrated above, shoreline

erosion needs to be addressed on a reach basis with full consideration

for the net effectiveness of the structural or other methods employed.

A reach is a shoreline unit wherein there is mutual interaction along

the shore in response to the forces of erosion and/or the sediment

supply. The methods employed within a reach should be selected to

meet the shoreline management strategy for that reach. For example,

consider a segment of shoreline which has wide creek mouths flanking

it on both sides. Since there is likely little sand by-passing across

the creek mouths, that shoreline segment may be considered an entity

to itself with respect to erosion processes. To further exemplify,

let us take a hypothetical case where half the shoreline reach is a

high bluff of sandy material and that erosion of the bluff results in

a sand supply to the other half of the reach. As conditions of

individual management now stand, we might find that a land owner

downdrift of the bluffed region would install groins (colloquially

called jetties) to trap some of the sand, thereby widening his beach

and inhibiting fastland erosion. At some later date the owner(s) of

the bluffed region might decide to construct a revetment or bulkheads

to inhibit or stop erosion of their property. In doing so, the local

supply of sand to the groin field would be diminished leading to

failure of such a protection strategy. The downdrift property owner

would then have to make 4 larger investment in an alternate strategy

which was independent of reliance on an updrift sediment supply. This

example clearly illustrates a circumstance wherein a coordinated

community response to the erosion problem within an affected reach

would be advantageous. Real case examples are abundant in the

Chesapeake Bay System. The case for coordinated strategies along

entire reaches is so strong that every effort toward such response

should be endorsed. Such coordinated response will require expert

Analysis of the shoreline condition 4nd design of appropriate

structures. This requirement will necessitate enhanced advisory or

engineering services, be they private or public.

References Cited

Byrne, R. J. and G. L. Anderson. 1977. Shoreline Erosion in
Tidewater Virginia. SRAMSOE No. 111, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA. 102 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, Bulletin District 1976. Chesapeake
Bay Future Condition Report, Adppendix II, Shoreline Erosion.

Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic
institute, 1962. Virginia tidal riverbank erosion survey:
Research Report 65, Blacksburg, Va.

CHAPTER 4

EROSIONACCRETION AFFECTING

CURRENT LAW AND POLICIES IN VIRGINIA

4.1 Current Law

Any attempt to understand or reconcile our present law concerning

accretion and erosion would be incomplete without first examining the

common law which is the historical foundation of current law and

policies. The following definitions are useful as a starting point:

Erosion - The gradual eating away of the soil by the operation
of currents or tides.(1)

Alluvion - That increase of the earth, on a shore or bank of a
stream or the sea, by the force of water, as by a current or
waves, which is so gradual that no one can judge how much is
added at each moment in time.(2)

Accretion - The act of growing to a thing; usually applied to the
gradual and imperceptible accumulation of land by natural causes,
as out of the sea or a river.(3)
q'
Avulsion - The removal of considerable quantities of soil from
the land of one man, and its deposit or annexation to the land of
another, suddenly, and by the perceptible action of water.(4)

One authority states the general rule of accretion as follows:

Under both the common law and civil law, when a river occupies
land by erosion, the landowner loses title. He gains if the
river recedes. The law of accretion was adopted with the common
law of England... passed by Congress.(5)

This section states the general rule quite well. The riparian

owner generally loses title when his land is eroded and gains when

alluvion is deposited by accretion. These basic principles were

recognized in Shively v. Bowlby(6) and St. Clair v. Lovingston.(7) In

31..

St. Clair, an important distinction was made between avulsion and

accretion or erosion. The English courts, in applying the principle

of de minimus non curat lex(8) (the law does not care for trifling

matters), set the stage for a distinction between gradual (trifling)

changes and significant or avulsive changes. The U.S. Supreme Court

addressed this issue in St. Clair v. Lovingston when they set forth

the following judicial test for distinguishing gradual from avulsive

changes in the shoreline.

The test as to what is gradual and imperceptible, in the sense of
the rule is, that though witnesses may see from time to time that
progress has been made, they could not perceive it while the
process was going on.(9)

The distinction between avulsive action and gradual or

imperceptible accretion or erosion is of critical importance. If

accretion or erosion occurs, title changes; title does not change if

avulsion occurs.00) The doctrine of avulsion has been largely

overlooked in Virginia, but has not been neglected in other states.

As applied in New York, the following two cases will illustrate the

potential significance of the avulsion doctrine. In City of new York

v. Realty Associates(11), the court held that a riparian owner was not

divested of title, even temporarily, to land lost by submergence

caused by reason of avulsion. This doctrine was expanded by a 1975

case, Trustees and Freeholders of Commonalty of Town of Southampton v.

Heilner(12), which held the "owner of land abutting a navigable bay

has the right to reclaim land lost through sudden submergence, but not

that part of the land lost through erosion."(13)

This doctrine of avulsion could have a significant impact if

applied to its maximum extent as it was in Freeholders v. Heilner.

For example, under the New York rule, a landowner who lost forty feet

during a storm would not only retain title to the submerged lands, but

would be allowed to reclaim the land taken by nature's action.

Possible stumbling blocks to the application of such a rule could be

Sections 62.1-1 and 62.1-3 of the Virginia Code(14) which gives the

State jurisdiction over the beds of state waters. Careful reading of

these statutes indicates, however, that the State has jurisdiction

over bottom lands owned by the Commonwealth. On this point there is

little room for debate. The key principle on which a landowner could

rely is that when the change is sudden or avulsive, title does not

change. Therefore the Commonwealth does not own the beds land created

by avulsive action and the State would not have jurisdiction under

62.1-1 and 62.1-3 over these newly created bottom lands. Conversely,

when the loss of property is due to erosion, the gradual eating away

of the shoreline, the state gains title and the landowner loses title.

The law of accretion and erosion is reflected in two Virginia

cases. In Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v. Walker(15), the court

held that the appellant, as successor in title to a tract of land, was

entitled to accretions to that property. In Steelman v. Field(16),

,the court held:

The increase of land adjacent to the seashore, derived from
alluvial deposits, happening so gradually that the increase could
not be observed while actually going on, although a visible
increase took place from year to year, belongs to the owner of
the land bounded upon the sea. The riparian owner gains

accretion, whether by reliction; the gradual and imperceptible
recession of the water, or by alluvion; the gradual and
imperceptible accretion from the water.(17)

The court in Steelman reasoned that access to water was one of

the values of riparian land and adoption of any other rule would deny

the riparian owner access and destroy the riparian nature of the land.

The court went on to hold:

Section 3574 of the Code of 1819, (Section 62.1-2 of the current
Code), in terms extends the rights of riparian owners of lands on
bays, rivers, creeks and shores of the sea to low water mark,
however, as this line may change either for the advantage or
disadvantage of the riparian owner, low water mark remains his
true boundary under the Virginia statute. The title of the
Commonwealth to public waters likewise shifts with the shifting
sands.(18, see also 19)

These two cases effectively demonstrate that Virginia has adopted

the general rules of erosion and accretion as inherited from the

common law of England. Virginia courts have yet to come to grips with

the doctrine of avulsion, but the majority rule seems likely to

prevail.

One additional doctrine merits discussion before advancing to

specific laws regarding Virginia's erosion problem. This is the

doctrine of reemergence. An explanation follows:

Where a landowner loses acreage to a navigable river by erosion,
title to this acreage is transferred by law from him to the state
or owner of the bed. If the river were to move in the other
direction and replace the same acreage with accreted land, the
landowner would obtain title by the doctrine of accretion. If
the river were moved by an avulsive shift rather than by slow and
imperceptible accretive movements, some jurisdictions recognize
the "doctrine of reemergence," and hold that title to such land
revests in its former owner.(20)

This rule is therefore the exception to the normal rule regarding

avulsion. Normally, title does not change as the result of an

avulsive action, but when an avulsive action recreates a former

estate, title revests in the original owner. This doctrine is

important to our study because when a lot (Lot A) erodes gradually

away and is totally submerged, the next landowner behind this lost lot

(the owner of Lot B) becomes a riparian owner and thereby receives an

economic windfall. The question which is next posed is what occurs

when accretions attach to Lot B and part of the land that was formerly

Lot A is reformed. The answer suggested by the above passage is that

if the reformation is a gradual accretion, title goes to the owner of

Lot B, but if the deposit is the result of an avulsive sudden change

the doctrine of reemergence will apply and the owner of Lot A can

reclaim his reformed property. Obviously, because two conditions must

be met (1) total erosion of Lot A; and 2) the avulsive reemergence of

what was formerly Lot A), the doctrine of reemergence is seldom

applicable, and no instance of its application has been found in

Virginia law. Its existence should nevertheless be noted.

4.2 Shoreline Erosion Policy in Virginia

Many states have passed legislation and invested large sums of

money to deal with the shore erosion problem. Despite the fact that

erosion is a serious problem in Virginia, the Commonwealth has taken

little action to address shoreline erosion. There are four sections

of the Code of Virginia which deal with the erosion problem. The

Shore Erosion Control Act (21), presented below is basically a

statement of policy.

Article 2.2 Section 21-11.16 states the policy:

Declaration of _ policy. The shores of the
Commonwealth of Virginia are a most valuable resource
that should be protected from erosion which reduces the
tax base, decreases recreational opportunities,
decreases the amount of open space and agricultural
lands, damages or destroys roads and produces sediment
that damages marine resources, fills navigational
channels, degrades water quality and, in general,
adversely affects the environmental quality; therefore,
the General Assembly hereby recognizes shore erosion as
a problem which directly or indirectly affects all of
the citizens of this State and declares it the policy
of the State to bring to bear the State's resources in
effectuating effective practical solutions thereto.
(1972, c. 855)

The act also gives the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission

responsibility to coordinate shore erosion control programs and

authorizes the Commission to hire one shore erosion engineer to assist

in carrying out these programs. However, the act is simply a state-

ment of policy; it contains neither organizational nor enforcement

provisions. Further, no funds have been appropriated since passage in

1972 to hire the shore erosion engineer.

One year later another Virginia statute, the Erosion and Sediment

Control Law(22), delegated responsibility to the Virginia Soil and

Water Conservation Commission to create an erosion and sediment

control program. The act calls for the Commission to cooperate with

soil and water districts and local governments in developing a

statewide coordinated erosion and sedimentation program. The statute,

however, specifically excludes tidal shore erosion control projects

approved by the Marine Resources Commission from coverage. A review

of this legislation and the guidelines promulgated by the Soil and

Water Conservation Commission indicates that the law is primarily

intended to address the problem of upland erosion and sedimentation

rather than the particular problem of shoreline erosion in coastal

areas. Thus, Virginia is still without a comprehensive statewide

approach to the coastal erosion problem.

The Code of Virginia further authorizes the creation of the

Virginia Beach Erosion Commission to deal with shoreline problems in

the Virginia Beach oceanfront area.(23) The Commission has addressed

the beach stability problem by implementation of an extensive beach

nourishment program. In 1977 approximately 285,000 cubic yards of

sand were used to stabilize the Virginia Beach shoreline. 160,000

cubic yards of this sand were pumped from Rudee Inlet, and the

remainder trucked in from Fort Story. This massive beach nourishment

program was carried out on a budget of $945,000. Of this money,

$150,000 was a direct appropriation from the General Assembly.(24)

The Army Corp of Engineers provides 50 percent matching funds for new

source materials to be applied to the shoreline. The remainder of the

funds came from the "sand tax" which is levied by the city on the

resort (hotel/motel) shoreline owners. Under this special tax scheme,

the monetary burden of financing shoreline protection is placed on

those who benefit most from the program. The money collected is not

spent solely on shoreline nourishment, however. Other programs funded

by the Virginia Beach Erosion Commission include offshore surveys and

channel maintenance. One significant problem looms on the horizon for

Virginia Beach; the sand stockpile at Fort Story is virtually depleted

and an alternative sand source must be found if the nourishment

program is to continue as in the past.

Norfolk has received a $90,000 appropriation from the General

Assembly. The Community Improvement Department of the City of Norfolk

is charged with responsibility for these funds and for development of

an effective erosion plan. Current plans include a channel bypass

feasibility demonstration to be conducted at the Little Creek Channel,

beach nourishment, (similar to the Va. Beach Program), an analysis of

long range sources of sand, and the development of long range

strategies to deal with the overall shoreline erosion. problem in

Norfolk.(25)

In 1978 the General Assembly established the Coastal Erosion

Abatement Commission(26) to study the effects of erosion on the

beaches, islands and inlets of the Commonwealth and shall make such

recommendations as are deemed necessary to prevent the further

destruction of these valuable natural resources. The Commission is

scheduled to complete its study and report its findings to the

Governor and the General Assembly no later than December 1, 1979.(27)

The work of this Commission and the recommendations made by them may

well represent the future of Virginia's shoreline erosion laws.

Section 15.1-31 of the Virginia Code (1960) is significance in

terms of state and local liability for actions taken to control

erosion. According to this section:

(a) Any county, city or town may construct a dam, levee, seawall
or other structure or device ......... the purpose of which is
to prevent the flooding or inundation of such county, city,
or town, or part thereof.

(b) The General Assembly withdraws the right to bring .... any
action at law or suit in equity against any county, city, or
town because of) or arising out of the design, maintenance,
performance, operation or existence of such works ..... but
this provision shall not be construed to authorize the
taking of private property without just compensation.... (28)
(emphasis added)

Although erosion is not specifically cited as a rationale for

this section, erosion can cause flooding and inundation and action'

taken to control erosion may arguably fall within the purview of this

provision. Any ambiguities regarding this section may be resolved by

the simple addition of the word "erosion" (see Chapter 8.5 F) to the

enumerated hazards of flooding and inundation. This freedom from tort

liability could also be made available to the political subdivisions

of the state by simple amendment. Any changes to or interpretations

of this section must be consonant with Article I, section 11 of the

Virginia Constitution prohibiting taking or damaging of private

property for public use without just compensation.

4.3 Federal Programs

A survey of applicable Federal law pertaining to shoreline

erosion is important when considering development of a state erosion

plan. Several Federal agencies have addressed the problem and are

currently involved with the shoreline erosion problem on a national

scale. These agencies include: The Office of Coastal Zone Management

in the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

as administrators of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as

amended in 1976(29); the United States Army Corps of Engineers(30);

the National Flood Insurance Administration (NFIA); and, to a limited

extent, the Small Business Administration.

One of the paramount considerations when adopting a state erosion

program should be compliance with Section 305(b)(9) of the CZM.

States must meet these requirements to qualify for Federal funds to

implement a state coastal zone management plan.

Those shoreline areas identified as Geographic Areas of

Particular Concern, as erosion hazard areas must meet the requirements

of Section 923.21:

Sec. 923.21 - Areas of Particular Concern

For areas designated as GAPC's a state must:

1. Describe the nature of the concern and the basis on
which designations are made.

2. Evaluate areas of significant hazard if developed,
due to storms, slides, floods, erosion, settlement, and
saltwater intrusion, to determine if such areas should
be addressed by a special management program (GAPC).

3. Describe how the management program addresses and
resolves the concern on which such a designation is
based.

4. Provide guidelines regarding uses in the designated
areas, including uses of lowest priority, in order to:

a. provide an adequate basis for special
management in areas of particular concern, and

b. provide a common reference point for resolving
conflicts.

5. GAPC's must be designated in sufficient detail so
that affected landowners, governmental agencies, and
the public can determine with reasonable certainty if

an area is or is not designated (maps are sug-
gested).(31)

The United States Corps of Engineers maintains a Beach Erosion

Control Program defined in the Flood Control Act of 1962 (PL 87-874):

Sec. 426e - Federal Aid in Protection of Shores and
Declaration of Policy (Condensed from 33 U.S.C. 426 et
seq.)

1. Policy - "With the purpose of preventing damage to
the shores of the United States and promoting and
encouraging healthful recreation of the people, it is
the policy of the U.S. to assist in the construction,
but not the maintenance, of works for the restoration
and protection against erosion by waves and currents,
of the shores of the United States."

2. Federal Contribution

a. In the case of any project the Federal
contribution shall not exceed one-half of the
total cost of the project.

b. In the case of projects for restoration and
protection of publicly owned parks and conser-
vation areas, the Federal contribution may be as
much as 70 percent of the total costs (exclusive
of land costs), when such areas:

1) Include a zone which excludes permanent
human habitation;

2) Include but are not limited to recreational
beaches;

3) Satisfy adequate criteria for conservation
and development of natural resources;

4) Extend landward to include protective
dunes, bluffs, or other natural protective
features where appropriate.

5) And provide essentially full park facili-
ties7 .-for public use.

C. All of the requirements of (b) above will meet
with the:'approval of the Chief of Engineers.

41,

d. Federal participation in projects providing
hurricane protection may be not more than 70
percent of the total cost exclusive of land costs.

3. Definition of "construction"

a. When the most suitable and economical remedial
measures would be periodic beach nourishment, the
term "construction" shall be construed to include
such artificial supply of sand.

4. Shores other than public will be eligible for
Federal assistance if:

a. There is benefit such as that arisina from
public use;

b. There is benefit from the protection of nearby
public property; or

c. If the benefits to those shores are incidental
to the project; and

d. The Federal contribution shall be adjusted
according to the degree of such benefits.

Allotment to States, Localities

1. Not more than $1,000 shall be alotted for any simple project
(Sec. 426g).(32)

The policies outlined above indicate that only shoreline projects

which benefit public lands are eligible for Federal assistance. The

Corps is quite active in the field of shoreline erosion and has

developed considerable expertise in this particular area of coastal

zone management. In addition the U.S. Corps of Engineers is

authorized (Section 5.5, Public Law 93-251, Water Resources Development

Act of 1974) to provide technical advisory services to any duly

authorized agency of any State, county, city or subdivision thereof.

While these services do not include funding of structural or

non-structural controls, technical advice and comment on engineering

design is supplied. If the costs of technical services exceed $3,000,

the District level authority must secure Division level authorization.

The Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) is involved, although

to a more limited extent, with the erosion problem. Compliance with

the requirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, which

amended Section 1302 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to

extend flood insurance coverage to "damage and loss resulting from the

erosion and undermining of shorelines by waves or currents in lakes

and other bodies of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels must

also be considered. This language has caused technicians some

difficulty as it is@difficult to determine what constitutes

anticipated cyclical levels". This difficulty has in fact hampered

development of practical regulatory and insurance policies.(33)

Section 1910.5 of the National Flood Insurance Program proposed a

set-back requirement for lands designated as type E zones by the

Administrator of FIA. The FIA has been unable to develop useful

guidelines for determining when erosion damage is covered, and

therefore this section has not achieved any of the goals which

Congress had intended in the legislation amending the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1 973. This standstill in development is confusing

and difficult for both,technicians and communities seeking the

protection that the FIA was mandated to provide.

Recent discussion with FIA officials indicates a desire to repeal

the V zone (coastal high hazard area) and the E zone (special

flood-related erosion hazard area) provisions of the Flood Disaster

Protection Act of 1973, as amended.(34) Officials indicated a desire

to place the erosion provision in another program, possibly the

Coastal Zone Management Program. One may place some significance on

the fact that to date no E zones have been designated by the

administrator.

A study was recently completed (June, 1978) by the Great Lakes

Basin Commission Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Management.(35)

Because of the difficulties in implementation the FIA has been

experiencing, the Study recommends repeal of the erosion coverage

sections of the Flood Disaster Protection Act, and that a national

program be established to provide financial assistance for state level

implementation of erosion plans developed pursuant to Sec. 305(b)(9)

of the Coastal Zone Management Act. A brief summary of the study is

included in Appendix C.

The Small Business Administration makes low or no-interest loans

available following storm related damage. In order to be eligible for

this relief a designation as disaster area must be declared. An

assessment of damage by the Governor and, in some cases, a follow up

by the President is necessar.y, but the potential availability of such

funds should not be overlooked.

ENDNOTES

1) Black's Law Dictionary, revised fourth edition.
2) Id.
3) Id.

4) Id.
5) Thompson on Real Property, Vol. 5A p. 2562 1957 (Repl. Vol.)
6) Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 35 (1893).
7) St. Clair v. Lovingston, 90 U.S. (27 Wall.) 49 (1874).
8) 2 Blackstrone commentaries 262.
9) St. Clair v. Lovingston, see note 7.
10) City of New York v. Realty Associates, 176 N.E. 171, 265 N.Y. 217
(1931).
11) Id. as above.
12) Trustees and Freeholders of Commonalty of Town of Southampton v.
Heilner, 375 NYS 2d 761, 84 Mix 2d 318 (1975).
13) Id. as above.
14) Ta. Code Ann. Sec. 62.1-3.
15) Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v. Walker, 100 Va. 69,40 S.E.633
*(1902).
16) Steelman v. Field, 142 Va. 383, 128 S.E. 558 (1925).
17) Id. as above.
18) f-d. as above.
19) -gee also Va. Code Ann. Sec. 62.1-2.
20) 14 Arizona Law Re@71`ew 325 (1972).
21) Va. Code Ann. S!ecs. 21-11.16 thru 21-11.9.
22) Id. at 21.89-1 thru 21.89-15.
23) Yd. at 62.1-151.
24) Te-n Melson, Va.* Beach Erosion Commission, personal communication
(1978).
25) Don Mathias, Norfolk Community Improvement Dept. personal
communication (1978).
26) Senate Joint Resolution No. 22, February 15, 1978.
27) Id. as above. '
28) Va. Code Ann. Sec. 15.1-31.
29) Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1451 et.
seq.
30) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Control Program, 33
U.S.C. 426 et. seq.
31) 43 Fed. Reg. 8403 (1978).
32) Id. at 30.
33) &u--otes from a report by the FIA for the National Conference on
Coastal Erosion, July 1977.
34) Discussion with Nick Lally, Chief, Flood Plain Management, and
Kennon Garvey-, staff, FPM, FIA, Washington, August, 1978. Paper
presented at "The National Conference on Coastal Erosion," July
6-8, 1977, by FIA staff.
35) Erosion Insura'nce Study conducted by the Erosion/Hazard
Management subcommittee of the Great Lakes Basin Committee Study
Coastal Zone Management. June 1978.

CHAPTER 5

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES -

POSSIBILITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

5.1 Elements to be Considered in Formulating A Strategy

A number of considerations are required before any particular

management strategy can be reasonably selected for any reach of

coastline under consideration. The factors in that planning process

are:

1) A statement of the erosion induced problem,

2) A clear statement of the management goal(s) for that

reach.

3) A complete technical assessment of the options for

structural and non-structural treatment and a statement of

the trade-offs within and among options,

4) An assessment of the costs and benefits of the various

technical options in light of current and projected or

planned land use characteristics, and

5) An assessment of possible mechanisms to fund the mitigation

program. These institutional considerations include the

distribution of costs between private and public sectors.

6) An examination of legal issues.

Of course the re siolution of the legal issues involved in various

strategies is critical to successful management. The remainder of

this section discusses these elements.

5.1.1 Statement of the Erosion Induced Problem. The erosion

induced problem may differ appreciably for different reaches within

the same region. However the underlying cause of the problem is an

erosion rate which is perceived as intolerable for one reason or

another. In one reach the erosion rate may be so high that regulation

of building activity in that hazard zone is deemed necessary. In

another reach, shoreside tourist facilities and/or the beach itself,

the keystone of the tourist attraction, may be eroding.

5.1.2 Management Goals for a Reach. The management goal(s) may

be framed in terms of the principal effects of erosion (Chapter 1):

1) To reduce, eliminate, or prevent the victimization of

existing or future property owners by the loss of property,

property improvements, and productive use of property due to

erosion,

2) To reduce the loss of taxable lands within localities.

3) To reduce the influx of erosion products into the estuarine

system and its flanking tidal entrances, and

4) To maintain a supply of sand to beaches within the reach.

Certainly other management goals may be stated; however, these goals

(individually and in combination) must be viewed as the principal

choices for the program within the reach. Not all goals will have

equal weight for any given reach. In fact, satisfaction of all of the

goals for any reach is not likely as some are mutually exclusive.

5.1.3 Technical Assessment of Options. The technical assessment

for options within a reach involves five principal elements:

1) Determination of the limits of the reach. A reach is a

segment of shoreline wherein the erosion processes and

responses are mutually interactive. Appreciable littoral

sand supply, for example, would not pass the boundaries of

the reach. A reach may also be defined as shoreline segment

wherein manipulation ofthe shoreline within that segment

would not directly influence adjacent segments;

2) Determination of the rates and patterns of erosion and

accretion within the reach;

3) Determination within the reach or the sites of erosion

induced sand supply and the volumes of that sand supply for

incremental erosion distances (also determine the sand

volumes lost from the reach);

4) Determination of the direction of net littoral drift, and, if

possible, estimation of the magnitude of gross and net drift

rates;

5) Estimation,of erosion causing factors other than wave

induced, such as ground water or surface runoff.

The importance of these five elements can be illustrated by

considering an example. Suppose we have a shoreline reach in which

one-half is an eroding bluff containing a high percentage of sand and

there is a strong net littoral drift such that as erosion of the bluff

proceeds the sand supplied by erosion acts to supply beach materials

to the downdrif t beaches which may also be eroding. This case nicely

illustrates the interactive nature of processes within a reach since

the erosion of the bluff supplies sand to the beach fronting the

bluffs as well as the downdrift beaches in the same reach. The sand

supply, in turn, retards the erosion rate by at least partially

maintaining the beach. Elements such as these are cornerstones in the

,evaluation of various options. For example, if the decision were made

to stop erosion of the bluff with the installation of a riprap

revetment, that action influences the options remaining for the

remainder of the reach. For example, the installation of a groin

field in the downdrift portions of the reach would be a marginally

effective action as the sand supply required for their proper function

would be starved by preventing continued erosion of the sandy bluffs.

It is this type of interactiveness between components of the reach

which must be considered in the formulations of options.

5.1.4 Economic Assessment of Costs and Benefits,, An Economic

Decision Framework. The objectives of the economic assessment

methodology is to estimate those costs and benefits which are

necessary for a comparison of alternative erosion control strategies.

Alternative strategies include both structural and non-structural

measures as well as a no-action strategy. The methodology provides

for an assessment of benefits and costs on the basis of a shoreline

reach.

Control measures may have an impact on benefits and costs in

three different shore areas:

1) Shore zone - a buffer between the water body and the

fastland. The seaward limit is essentially the mean low

water line which generally separates the steeper slope of the

foreshore from the low tide terrace of lesser slope. The

landward limit is the fastland which is generally discernable

by a topographic feature such as a bluff face or upland

vegetation.

2) Nearshore zone - the nearshore zone extends waterward from

the shore zone to the 12-foot contour.

3) Fastland zone - the zone extending from the landward limit of

the shore zone is termed the fastland. Fastland is

relatively stable and is the site of most material

development and construction.

Calculations of costs and benefits should include the impact of

controls on each of these areas. Either private or public entities

may incur costs and accrue benefits. Therefore, total costs and

benefits are calculated with a secondary breakdown between private and

public entities.

Section 6.2 of this report is a application of the economic

assessment methodology or decision framework. The following

discussion of the factors and methods included in the case study is

intended to serve as a guide to the process of economic assessment.

5.1.4.1 Costs. For each shoreline reach, an assessment of

options was made,by shoreline erosion technical experts. Appropriate

structural control measures were proposed. Structural controls

include measures or combinations of measures from the following

general categories:

groin fields riprap*revetments
bulkheading or seawalls perched beach
contouring of the fastland jetties at inlet entrances

Costs of implementing the proposed structural control measures were

based on standard cost guides with costs in present dollar values.

For activities such as dredging and beach nourishment continuing

expenditures were discounted to a present value.

Another cost factor assigned to costs of structural controls was

the cost of technical assistance. This type of assistance would be

provided by shoreline technical experts and includes:

1) work of technicians including the measuring of erosion rates,

interpreting maps and photos, and tabulating data;

2) scientific analysis including field, laboratory and office

work using data from number one;

3) general oversight for technical aspects of erosion control

programs.

In addition to the impact on the value of property and

improvements in the fastland zone, structural measures may result in

impacts in both the shore and nearshore zones. The impact on costs

are generally described as the changes in opportunity to use a

resource - in this case a change in the flow of service from the water

based activity. These activities include:

1) change in water quality,

2) change in fish and plant resources,

3) marina locations,,

4) restrict or change recreation uses,

5) shellfish harvest,

6) congestion of waters,

7) change in potential flood damages.

With the exception of information on dredging and beach replenishment,

measurements of the impact of control measures on the nearshore and

shore areas were unavailable. A complete evaluation of these impacts

was outside the scope of this study. Therefore, only limited

information for these activities could be included in the analysis.

A second set of costs were derived from estimated decreases in

values of property and improvements or losses from restrictions on use

of resources because of implementation of selected non-structural

control measures. Non-structural controls include the following

categories:

1) ownership restrictions - such as public acquisitions,
easements,:etc.;

2) regulating actions - such as permitting, zoning, setback

lines', etc.;

3) relocation - this measure involves relocation of major

structures;

4) financial incentives such as taxation, low interest loans,

grants, -etc.;

5) insurance programs.

Values are calculated for each reach on the basis of a "without" and

with" approach. That is, values for resources and their uses were

estimated for the current situation and compared to their values after

implementation of a control measure.

The third set of costs were those associated with transaction and

administration activities involved in the actual implementation and

control of the program. Cost categories include:

1) ownership restrictions (includes relocation),

2) regulatory action,

3) financial incentives,

4) data collection/planning,

5) educational/assistance.

Where appropriate, legal costs and the cost of administering

compensation programs were included. These costs, as with the first

two sets, are calculated as an average for a reach.

Administrative and transaction costs for an ownership restriction

or regulating action program were based on implementation and control

of that program for a shoreline reach area. Likewise, costs were

calculated for administering a financial/incentive program which

included grants, taxation, loans, and insurance programs.

Costs of data collection/planning/research include necessary

activities to allow for a comparison of benefits and costs of

alternative management strategies. This category included costs of

collection of real estate and assessment data, land use information,

calculation of changes in values of property and improvements and land

uses in each shoreline reach area, and costs of analyzing the impact

of various control strategies on costs and benefits.

This third set of costs are extremely important to the process of

making comparisons between various levels of jurisdictional control

over management strategies.

5.1.4.2 Benefits. Benefits from erosion control measures

may accrue in all three shore areas - the shore zone, nearshore zone

and fastland zone. However, as with the cost calculations, only

limited "information" exists for the impacts in the shore and

nearshore zone. Benefits associated with dredging and beach

replenishment were included for the shore zone. Benefits from

accretion and the flow of services from water-borne activities were

excluded because@information on those activities was not readily

available.

On-shore benefits of structural control measures were derived by

applying a "without" and "with" control analysis. Benefits were

derived by calculating future erosion damages which would be prevented

by implementing erosion control measures. These benefits are

calculated forfour categories:

1) land use (productivity)

2) buildings and structures

a. 'dwellings

b. other buildings on land (sheds, garages, barns, etc.)

C. structures on water (piers, docks, boat houses, etc.)

3) property values (land minus improvements)

4) loss of tax revenue.

Sources of data used to establish values and procedures used to

calculate values are explained in detail in Appendix A of this report.

Application of the procedure to a case study area is presented in

Section 6.2 of this report.

5.1.4.3 Establishing Values for Current Situation.

Evaluation of the impact of erosion control strategies on value of

property (including improvements) and uses of that property for each

individually owned parcel was based on the value of those resources in

a status quo state (that is, let erosion continue without additional

control measures) compared to the value with control strategies.

Therefore, values for the resources in the identified impact area were

established as the basis for calculation of impact costs and benefits.

For purposes of this study, the value of property and

improvements of individually owned parcels was determined for both a

100-foot and 200-foot depth frontage as well as a 10-year, a 15-year,

a 30-year, and a 67-year erosion rate depth area and then consolidated

for each identified reach. These six alternative impact areas will

allow a decision maker to compare the magnitude of costs and benefits

of various management strategies. The six alternatives were selected

because the 100-foot and 200-foot depth frontage are commonly

suggested management strategies. Also, recent erosion rates are

approximate indicators of future erosion rates for 10, 15, and 30-year

periods and many control structures are amortized on those years of

useful life. Likewise the 67-year erosion rate has been suggested for

use in the federal flood insurance program. The 67-year period is

based on the average useful life of residential structures.

5.1.4.4 Establishing Impact Values for Insurance Programs.

As indicated in Chapter 4.3 ofthis report, discussions with Federal

Insurance Administration (FIA) officials indicate a desire to repeal

the V zone (coastal high hazard area) and the E zone (special

flood-related erosion hazard) provisions of Flood Disaster Protection

Act of 1973, as amended, and place those provisions into another

program, possibly the Coastal Zone Management Program. Day-to-day

erosion and bluff type undercutting would be excluded from the FIA

program. Over-wash,type erosion flood problems or unanticipated

recession of the shoreline where erosion is associated with inundation

would be covered under the normal flood disaster program. That

insurance covers structures and contents of those walled and roofed

structures but generally does not cover boat houses over thewater.
Land is excluded becaus@ it is generally not tied to disaster relief.

Docks and appurtenant structures are not covered.

In addition t6 the option of removing erosion from the program,

four other options-"are suggested for consideration. The four options

are:

1) total pr6,hibition of new construction in erosion hazard

areas,

2) setback requirements within erosion zones,

3) no insura!nce zones as an alternative to setback requirements,

and

4) moveable',*structures and buffer zones.

This study acknowledges that a difference in insurance rates may

be tied to erosion characteristics or erosion control practices.

Also, insurance rates are directly related to structure evaluation and

flood proofing. Because the insurance rate structure (both subsidized

and actuarial) is dependent on many variables, unknown at this time,

no attempt was made to calculate those differences or the cost and

benefits of flood proofing and structure elevation which will remain

as part of the provisions of the traditional flood insurance program.

Nevertheless the established values for property and improvements

were used to provide sufficient information as to the probable impacts

of the proposed insurance alternatives.

5.1.4.5 Use of Costs and Benefits in Evaluation of

Management Strategies. The calculated costs and benefits values were

consolidated into a summary budget for each study reach. Detailed

procedure s for construction of the budget is explained in Appendix A.

The compilation of the costs and benefits into the summary budget

provided the basis for making the following comparison for each

shoreline reach:

1) between no-control (continue as is) and selected control

measures for selected areas,

2) between various levels of control as represented by the

proposed options for each reach,

3) between structural and non-structural control measures, and

4) distribution of costs and benefits between private and public

sector.

,An important constraint and limitation to the analysis is the current

inability to relate cost for each level of control (the marginal cost)

to the benefits for each level of control (the marignal benefit).

That analysis is needed before the optimal level of control for each

area can be determined. Our analysis does, however, provide

reasonable estimates for selected levels of control.

A secondary use of the consolidated figures on the value of

resources in a status quo state within each reach and for each depth

frontage area or erosion rate depth area was to provide a comparison

of the magnitude of costs and benefits involved in various policy

actions. For example, costs and benefits were calculated for impacts

from such proposed insurance related practices as total prohibition of

construction in an-k@area, open space requirements, setback requirements

and relocation cosfs. The analysis provides a realistic assessment of

the magnitude of co sts and benefits associated with each option. (See

Section 6.4 of this report)

5.1.4.6 Evaluation of Policies on Management Strategies.

The consolidated budget figures also provide necessary cost and

benefit data for use in making a policy decision on the best

management strategy. Costs and benefits on the basis of total costs

and benefits and between private and public entities can be allocated

amongst various management strategies which are based primarily on the

level of jurisdictional authority and control.

5.2 A Guide to Institutional Alternatives
7
A variety of public and semipublic tools exist for dealing with

shore erosion specifically and shoreland use generally. These tools,

described in the following section, can be grouped in several broad

categories: direct ownership and control; use regulation; incentive

measures; and educational/advisory services. In the case of public

actions other standards become relevant in assessing appropriateness.

These include principles of: 1) equity in the distribution of public

costs and benefits; 2) maximized administrative efficiency and

coordination; and 3) maximized return on investment except where

superceded by the public need.

A number of institutional alternatives are available for applying

structural and non-structural solutions to shoreline erosion problems.

They can be employed by local, state and federal governments alone or

in combination with private interests. An outline of the alternatives

follows.

5.2.1 Public Ownership and Land Dedication. Full or partial

public ownership of land (and/or structures) offers the most direct

means of managing erosion-prone shorelines. Outright ownership of

erodable property would basically insure full control of development,

plus proper construction and maintenance of shoreline structures in

these areas. But it is a limited approach. In the case of property

acquisition, major limiting factors include purchase costs of the

property and selection of a party to be responsible for the property.

Funds for selective acquisition of shoreland areas could be

raised either through an earmarked appropriation from the state's

general fund, or through solicitation of funding from foundations

(e.g., the Nature Conservancy). In the case of appropriation, a state

funding priority scheme favoring shoreline preservation would need to

be developed.

A related approach in developing shoreline areas is that of

mandatory and/or voluntary dedication of public easements or property.

Local governments are already empowered to require land dedication for

public use as a condition of subdivision plat approval. Under

Delaware's erosion control program, for example, the State will fund a

shoreline stabilizing project if the property owners agree to allow

access to the once private beach (Del. Code Ann. 6801 et seq.).

Voluntary dedication of easements or property would also be

solicited for acceptance by third parties as gifts to be held in

public trust, in combination with some of the regulatory and tax

incentive tools discussed later in this section. It should also be

noted that Corps oi- Engineers assistance for erosion control is only

available for projdcts which benefit public use of shore property.

Appropriate holdingbodies for such properties could include special

purpose federal, state, or regional authorities, local or regional

special districts,'quasi-public organizations or public trusts, and

state agencies. Authorization for cooperation among local governments

in such activity is provided by the "joint exercise of powers"

provision of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1972. Federal

Title V commissions such as the Coastal Plains Regional Commission

provide a model for interstate cooperation.

5.2.2 Regulation and Use Restriction. Regulation of shoreline

uses could take the form of several existing land/water use management

models. It is important, however, to avoid new regulatory machinery

where possible. Regulatory approaches hold greater promise in the

case of hazardous shorelines which were designated as GAPCs where the

police power can be invoked.

Zoning is the basic tool provided to local governments for

regulation of land uses. Enabling legislation currently allows local

governments to establish shorelands zones within which minimum

setbacks may be required, and also to establish special conditions for

the development and use of environmentally-sensitive lands. The

limiting factor in the shoreland zoning approach is the degree of

dependence on state agencies created for information about local

erosion rates and the likely inland extent of the problem. The

federal Flood Insurance Administration has recently suggested several

variations of the shoreland hazard zones. These boundaries would be

determined by multiplying average useful lives of shoreline structures

by the predicted local shoreline erosion rate. Within the zone, (a)

future uses would be limited to open space, or else (b) specified

1. no-construction" setbacks would be created, inside of which new

structures would either be prohibited or allowed only if capable of

being relocated. The City of Virginia Beach has adopted specific

building regulations applicable to areas subject to coastal storm

flooding and wave action.

Subdivision and/or site plan review ordinances represent

companion tools to local zoning ordinances more directly focused on

construction standards. Subdivision regulations (now required of all

Virginia localities) apply to land division and transfer, and allow

localities to: 1) review plats for consistency with established

standards for erosion, drainage, and flood control; 2) require

dedication or rights-of-way or land for public use as a condition of

plat approval; and 3) reserve lands for future public acquisition on

the basis of approved plans for public facilities. Recent

authorization by the General Assembly to extend power of contract

zoning (conditional rezoning) to all local governments is an important

supporting measure. It allows these governments to negotiate with

developers and produce binding agreements on specific uses to be

permitted in particular districts. Assistance in assessing possible

impacts of (or hazards to) various uses would need to be provided by

the state or other sources, however.

Public acquisition of development rights allows the imposition of

various forms of uge restriction. One of the more frequent

applications of the principle has been in the case of historic or

scenic easements, where property owners agree to transfer certain

development rights to the public while retaining ownership of the

property. A more elaborate approach involves the creation of housing

and redevelopment authorities, empowered under special legislation to

purchase, clear, and return to market land at somewhat reduced value

and with use restrfictions. Authorization can also include provisions

for design and construction of protective measures. Use of this

device for the management of hazard areas specifically might require

some clarification of the enabling legislation, but the most critical

factors would probably be funding and staff. In Virginia, such

authorities have functioned well only when federal funding has been

available and in limited, intensively-developed areas where high costs

of operation are balanced by high returns in the form of hazard or

blight reduction.

Virginia's wetlands legislation provides another regulatory model

generally relevant to the erosion problem. Under the legislation all

local governments in Tidewater Virginia are authorized to adopt

wetlands zoning regulations for specified wetlands areas and to

establish local wetlands boards with permit issuance authority over

uses (less certain exempted uses) within these areas. Permit

decisions of local wetlands boards are subject to review and override

by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), and, in areas

where local wetlands ordinances are not adopted, the VMRC retains

direct control of wetlands uses. Variances for demonstrated hardships

are permitted, as in the case of conventional zoning.

The regulatory jurisdiction of the VMRC also extends to

activities upon subaqueous land, and provides still another regulatory

framework. Under the State Code, the VMRC administers a

permitting/leasing program for all uses of state-owned subaqueous land

not specifically exempted, with provision for limited environmental

impact assessment in coordination with the Virginia Institute of

Marine Science and other advisory agencies of proposed actions.

5.2.3 Incentive/Disincentive Measures. Incentive measures for

managing erosion-prone shorelines could include various combinations

of grants, cost-sharing, and preferential tax, loan, and insurance

policies* closely tied to the regulatory and advisory approaches

Discussed in Section 4.3.

described elsewhere in this section. Maryland's Shore Erosion Control

construction fund, which offers long-term, interest-free loans for

construction of control structures, is one example of direct incentive

approach. However, such programs might foster the individual

piecemeal approach.

Another approach would involve the adoption of enabling

legislation authorizing local governments to design, construct, and

maintain shoreline defense structures on a shoreline reach basis,

through creation of erosion abatement districts with limited bonding

power. Under this approach shoreline property owners would request

their local governments to create such a district, as in the case of

present Watershed ,improvement Districts under the Soil and Water

Conservation Districts. The local government would then be authorized

to issue special two-way bonds for financing the construction of

suitable erosion abatement structures for the district and to assess

individual property owners along the shoreline for the purpose of

repaying the bonds and financing maintenance costs. Several coastal

states use this approach to finance local erosion projects. A number

of variations on this basic scheme are possible.

Incentives should be designed to encourage nonconflicting uses of

the shoreline, as@well as the replenishment (where feasible and

necessary) of eroding shorelines, and the proper installation and

maintenance of control structures. One major problem area is the

present system of,property taxation, which in effect tends to

encourage transfe'r and development of shorefront property rather than

retention in low_@intensity use or improvement in the form of

flood-proofing or erosion defense. Local assessment of low-intensity

shorefront land as commercial property, for example, now has the

effect of forcing conversion to that use, because the carrying costs

of holding the land in any lower use become prohibitive. Property tax

exemptions and/or income tax credits for improvements to property in

hazard areas could be offered, although these measures alone would

probably not be sufficient to offset the true "costs" of improvements

to property owners (or even retention in nonproductive use) because

such improvements would seldom enhance the property's market value.

This problem might be attacked more directly through broadening of the

present land use assessment law or changing the assessment criteria to

take into consideration raw land and use of structures as well as

productivity of land.

5.2.4 Educational/Advisory Services. Educational and advisory

services would constitute a key component of any erosion abatement

program. Educational activities dealing with the erosion problem in

large would need to be targeted separately to the general public and

to officials, by means of meetings, brochures and newsletters,

audiovisual packages, and other media. Some form of training/advisory

program for local officials and program staff would probably be

essential, along with the development of management guidelines for use

in local planning and permitting activities.

Advisory services to current and prospective shorefront prop-

erty owners would remain an important element of an overall manage-

ment program, and might be expanded to include development of

state-of-the-art design and construction guidelines for marine

contractors. Advisory services to private property as well as public

bodies, are now available from the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science and the Soil Conservation Service (USDA). The U. S. Corps of

Engineers provides advice as well, upon request of duly authorized

state and local agencies. One major addition to these existing

services could be the establishment of a mandatory risk alert system,

in which property title transfer would be preconditioned on

acknowledgement of a shoreline property's erosion to the prospective

owner. Lack of knowledge of risks has been a chronic problem

producing both unnecessary liabilities in the form of shoreline

improvements and poorly-designed remedial/protective structures which

often increase the.erosion threat to properties throughout the reach.

5.3 A Guide to Legal Issues in Management Strategy

5.3.1.Individual-Liability_for Downdrift Impacts of Shoreline

Defense Structures. The most important point to remember is that the

law regarding liability for downdrift impacts is at the evolutionary

or developmental stage. For this reason there have been few cases
P
litigated on this-,point. Obviously, in situations where there is no

statutory law and_very few cases, it is difficult to make a judgement.

This section discusses the common law right which allows a riparian

owner to protect his property from the sea and analyzes the four cases

which have been litigated on this point.

That an owner may protect his property from damage by the sea is

widely recognized, This right is most commonly expressed as the

Common Enemy Doctrine. An excerpt follows:

67,

Every proprietor of land exposed to the inroads of the sea may
erect on his land groins, or other reasonable defenses, for the
protection of his land against the inroads of the sea, although,
by doing do, he may cause the sea to flow with greater violence
against the land of his neighbor, and render it necessary for the
latter to protect himself, by the erection of similar sea
defenses. "Each landowner has a right to protect himself, but
not to be protected by others, against the common enemy." But a
man has no right to do more than is necessary for his defense and
to make improvements at the expense of his neighbor.(I)

In Jubilee Yacht Club v. Gulf Refining Company(2), the reasoning

cited above was followed. In this case the court held, "The erection

of fences, walls, or other structures, or the making of excavations on

his own land, is ordinarily within the absolute right of the owner,

without reference to the incidental injury which thereby be caused to

his neighbor."

Only one case, KatenKamp v. Union Realty Company(3), has been

discovered in which a riparian owner has been held liable for

downdrift impacts created by the erection of an effective groin. In

KatenKamp the landowner was not attempting to protect his shoreline,

which was rocky, and not in need of protection. The groin erected by

the landowner was not to protect property as expressly sanctioned in

the common enemy doctrine but to improve the land. The owner was

quite successful in that he turned his rocky point into a sandy beach,

but activities of this sort are improvement schemes and not protective

measures. KatenKamp can be distinguished from the normal protection

situation because the owner was attempting to change and improve his

land, not merely to protect it.

In a Virginia Case, Burwell v. Hobson(4), an injunction against

construction of a dike was upheld to prevent damage to lands behind a

previously constructed dike on the opposite side of the creek. The

applicability of the case to erosion liability is not as clear as

KatenKamp since this case involves flooding damage rather than

downstream erosion damage. It also appears to have been decided more

on principles of easement and rights running with the land. Under the

common enemy doctrine, the building of a dike, absent unreasonableness

of construction or a scheme to improve and not protect property,,

should have been pe,rmissible in Burwell. This case may be interpreted

to establish in Virginia a rule to liability between private parties

based on priority in time that contravenes the generally accepted

common enemy doctrine.

In summary, the question of individual liability for downstream

impacts appears unsettled at this time.

5.3.2 State Liability. Several cases have been discovered in

which a city, state or the federal government has been held free of

liability for actions causing erosion. In Paty v. Town of Palm

Beach(5), the Florida Supreme Court held that the town was not liable

for downdrift impacts of a town erected groin. In Pitman v. U.S.(6),

the Federal Court of Claims held that the plaintiff's damage claim

from erosion resulting from a Federal project was non-compensable.

The U.S. Supreme dourt held in Bedford v. U.S.(7), that:

Damages to land by flooding as the result of revetments erected
by the United States along the banks of the Mississippi River to

prevent erosion of the banks from natural causes are conse-
quential and do not constitute a taking of the lands flooded
within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution.

No Virginia cases dealing with the issue of state liability for

downstream erosion impacts have been found. State liability for

downstream impacts may occur in the protection of state lands from

erosion, or, as a result of state actions to control erosion on

private lands.

The Commonwealth of Virginia like many other states enjoys the

protection offered by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Sovereign

immunity exempts the sovereign (in this case the state) from suit

without its consent. The concept of sovereign immunity may be traced

to ancient Roman law. Prosser(8) states the historical basis for the

evolution of this immunity as follows:

...the origin of the idea underlying them in the common law seems
to have been the theory, allied with the divine right of kings,
that "the King can do no wrong," together with the feeling that
it was necessarily a contradiction of his sovereignty to allow
him to be sued in his own courts ... when the individual sovereign
was replaced by the broader conception of the moderfi state, the
idea was carried over that to allow a suit against a ruling
government without its consent was inconsistent with the very
idea of supreme executive power.

This concept was applied in the United States'in Cohen v. Va.(9)

when Chief Justice Marshall stated that the United States would not be

sued without its consent. This holding and others like it eventually

led to the passage of the Federal Tort Claims Act(10) which subjected

the U.S. to suit in tort. Regarding governmental immunity on a state

level Prosser notes:

The sovereign immunity likewise carried over from the English
crown to the several American states. There was but one abortive
attempt to change the rule; but it led only to the Eleventh
Amendment to the federal Constitution, protecting any state from
suit by a private citizen in the federal courts. Thereafter the
doctrine became firmly established, that there is no state
liability in tort unless consent is given.(11)

Case support for Prosser's statement quoted above is plentiful.

An analysis of important Virginia cases on the topic of governmental

immunity from suit follows.

Generally, the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot be sued without

its permission. In Cornwall v. The Commonwealth(12), the court held,

"No one can sue the State except by her consent and as provided by

law." Despite its age, this 1866 holding still reflects Virginia law.

The State acknowledged its duty to pay debts in Higginbotham's v. The

Commonwealth(13), where the court stated, "The present State of

Virginia is bound 'to the creditors of the state."

The immunity stated in Cornwall v. The Commonwealth was extended

in Wilson v. State Highway Commissioner.(14) This case was one where

a landowner attempted to sue the State Highway Commissioner in his

official.capacity, and others as individuals, for damages caused by

negligent and unlawful acts of the defendants committed during the

construction of a highway. The court held that the relationship

between the Comissioner, his employees, and the State was such that

any liability they incurred would be charged to the State. Therefore,

they as agents of the State were entitled to immunity from suit. This

case extended the State's immunity from suit to its agents and

employees acting in their official capacity.

The holding in Wilson was further refined in Sayers v.

Bullar.(15) In this case a landowner was attempting to sue the state

for damage incurred when the state agents set off explosives which had

the effect of stopping the flow of water from the plantiff's spring.

This case held once again that agents of the state are immune from

suit in tort. The court in Sayers held, "A State cannot be sued

except by its permission, and even if the suit, in form, be against

the officers and agents of the State, yet if, in effect, it be against

the State, it is not maintainable." The court also stated the fol-

lowing situations in which an employee of the state might lose his

right to immunity. "In a tort action against an employee of the

state, allegation and proof of some act done by the employee outside

the scope of his authority, or of some act within the scope of

authority but performed so negligently that it can be said that'its

negligent performance takes him who did it outside the protection of

his employment are required." The court further stated, "The immunity

of the State from actions for tort extends to State agents and

employees where they are acting legally and within the scope of their

employment, but if they exceed their authority and go beyond the

sphere of their employment, or if they step aside from it, they do not

enjoy such immunity when they are sued by a party who has suffered

injury by their negligence." Sayers v. Bullar strengthened the

immunity from suit in tort which extends to State agents. This

immunity was extended to the Elizabeth River Tunnel District in Tunnel

District v. Beecher.(16)

The implications that these cases have on liability for shoreline

erosion are apparent. An agent or employee of the state can incur no

liability for negligence or any other tort so long as the act is

within the scope of his employment and not performed in such a grossly

negligent fashion as to take him outside of the protection his

employment offers. For example, if an agent gives faulty advice

concerning some shoreline structure and the structure subsequently

fails or perhaps a downdrift neighbor files suit, the agent would be

clothed with the states absolute immunity from suit in tort and

therefore be able to escape liability. The state, of course, has this

immunity and would also avoid liability. Only if the agent were

grossly negligent or acting outside the scope of his employment could

a successful action be maintained. In such a situation the suit would

be against the agent as an individual and the State would still incur

.no liability.

The cases cited above are perhaps what led James A. Eichner, in A

Century of Tort Immunities in Virginia,(17) [4 U. of Rich. 238,

(1970)) to state:

"T hus, the do ttrine of a state's absolute immunity from suit in
tort has become case hardened. Absolute immunity in negligence
has been similarly extended to state-created authorities, despite
the fact that such authorities have been held absolutely liable,
without negli,gence, for property damage on state constitutional
grounds." (emphasis added)

Since the matter of state liability for advisory services appears

to be clear, the balance of this section will focus on the issues of

property damage and compensation underlined above. Article 1, Section

II of the Constitution of Virginia states:

That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or
property without due process of law; that the General Assembly
shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor
any law whereby private property shall be taken or damaged for
public uses, without just compensation, the term " public uses to
be defined by the Assembly"... (emphasis added)

This provision was held to be self-executing in Heldt v. Tunnel

District.(18) In this case the court held that all that is necessary

for a recovery is the showing of damage. Mrs. Heldt's buildings were

damaged by water from the tunnel project, therefore she was entitled

to recovery. It is important to note that this was an eminent domain

case not a suit in tort. In Wilson v. State Highway Commissioner(19)

the plaintiff was denied recovery because he already obtained relief

in an eminent domain proceeding. This was also the case in Sayers v.

Bullar(20), the plaintiff in that case suffered property damage, but

the proper way to present the claim was in an eminent domain

proceeding, not in a suit against a state agent. The Heldt decision

was relied on in Morris v. Tunnel District.(21) In this casei the

plaintiff alleged her property was damaged by the Tunnel District

during construction of the Elizabeth River Tunnel. The Tunnel

District defended on the grounds that they were immune from a tort

action. This defense was without merit, because regardless of tort

liability, self-executing provisions of the Virginia Constitution

require compensation when private property is damaged for public use.

Quite clearly, if the state, or, a state commission or district

takes or damages private property for public uses, compensation must

be paid. This statement has significance in relation to potential

legal liabilities which the state might incur when implementing a

mandatory shoreline erosion plan, or, when state action causes

downstream impacts that damage or "take" private property.

State liability can be summarized by several general principles.

1) The Commonwealth can only be sued by its consent or as provided by

law. Cornwall v. the Commonwealth, 82 Va. 644, (1866).

2) The statute which outlines the procedure for suits against the

State is Virginia Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-192.

3) The State has retained absolute immunity from suit in tort and

this immunity has been extended to State agents and commissions.

[Wilson v. State Highway Commissioner, 174 Va. 82, 4 S.E. 2d 746,

(1939). Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. 222, 22 S.E. 2d 9, (1942).

Tunnel District v. Beecher, 202 Va. 452, 117 S.E. 2d 685, (1961).]

4) This immunity from suit in tort which has been extended to cover

state agents and employees by implication protects state agents

and the state from suits based on faulty or erroneous advice.

5) However, Article 1, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution states

that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use

without just compensation.

6) Article 1, Sec- 11 of the Virginia Constitution been held to be

self-executing, and a landowner need only show damage to obtain

compensation.. [Heldt v. Tunnel District, 196 Va. 477, 84 S.E. 2d

511 (1954). Morris v. Tunnel District, 203 Va. 196, 123 S.E..2d

398 (1962).]

7) Application of these principles to the shoreline erosion situation

indicates that actions of the state or a subentity of the state

for a public purpose which result in downstream impacts that

damage or constitute a taking of private property must be

compensated.

5.3.3 The Taking Issue as it Relates to Set-back Lines and Other

Land Use Regulations

5.3.3.1 Introduction to the Set-back Concept. The purpose

of this section is to examine the "taking issue" as it relates to

set-back lines and other types of land use regulations. It includes a

survey of zoning law in Virginia and an explanation of the

compensation amounts due when a "taking" does occur. It also offers

some suggestions for avoiding the "taking" problem.

A set-back line is essentially a land use regulation.(22) It is

a form of zoning known as open space zoning, where construction is

prohibited or severely restricted to preserve open space for a variety

of public objectives.(23) In the case of a coastal construction

set-back line, construction is prohibited or severely restricted

seaward of the established line. The public objective to be sought in

establishing a set-back line for Virginia's seashores is the

protection of the Commonwealth's coastal areas from the type of

development practices that endanger shorefront property and/or

aggravate beach erosion.(24) A set-back line approach to the problem

of shoreline erosion seeks a solution within the shoreline system,

rather than the site-specific approach that has sometimes proven to be

ineffective.(25)

A coastal construction set-back line may be established in two

ways. The local planning commission of a county or municipality may

create the line over lands under its jurisdiction.(26) The local

board of,supervisors would then implement the plan. Arguably, the

power to establish a set-back line is within the power to zone,

granted to the localities by the General Assembly in its enabling

act.(27) The second method is the creation of a state-wide set-back

line. This may be done by statute, which would confer upon a state

agency the power and authority to establish the line on a locality by

locality basis.(28) This method may be preferable in that there would

be some assurance that the line would be drawn under one established

set of criteria. The first method leaves the decision to the

localities where various political and economic factors may work

against its establishment. This set of problems might be alleviated

by having local implementation of uniform state-wide guidelines.

The establishment of a set-back line, like any other land use

ordinance, limits:.@the use an owner may make of his property.(29) A

state's power to limit the use of private property for the purposes of

general,welfare is not unrestricted. It is therefore necessary to

examine the constitutional limits on the state's power to restrict the

use of property and to determine whether the establishment of a

coastal construction set-back line would be within those limits.

5.3.3.21 Constitutional Analysis. The power of the state to

regulate the use of private land is its police power, the inherent

authority of a state government to control the activities of

individuals in order to foster public health, safety, morals, and the

general welfare. This authority is exercised through legislation

which restrains and regulates the use of property.(30) The state's

use of the police power to regulate the use of land is limited by two

provisions of the U. S. Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the

state from depriving any person of property without due process of

law,(31) and the Fifth Amendment, which has been incorporated into the

Fourteenth, prohibits the taking of property for public use without

just compensation.(32) The major issue in land use regulation

involves the problem of determining which land use regulation

constitutes a valid exercise of the police power and which regulation

constitutes a "taking" for which the Fifth Amendment mandates

compensation to the owner. The Supreme Court has considered the

issue,(33) and numerous state courts have applied different judicial

tests to decide the issue. To determine the constitutionality of a

coastal set-back line, we must examine the tests laid down by the

Supreme Court and various state courts.

The Supreme Court first considered the constitutionality of the

state's application of the police power to private land use in

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon.(34) Mahon involved the Kohler

Act,(35) a Pennsylvania statute which made it unlawful to mine coal so

as to cause the caving in or collapse of public buildings, streets,

bridges, churches, hotels, railroad stations, or any dwelling used for

human habitation. it has been the practice of the mining companies in

the coal regions of the state to sell'their land to private parties or

to municipalities, reserving for themselves the mineral rights to

these properties. When the companies proceeded to exercise their

mineral rights on these properties, the shafts dug would undermine the

support of the structures, resulting in the subsidence of the ground

and the collapse of buildings. In 1921, the Kohler Act was passed by

the legislature to remedy this hazard to public health and safety.

Unsuccessful in the state courts, the Pennsylvania Coal Co. challenged

the Kohler Act in the United States Supreme Court.(36)

The Pennsylvania Coal Co. challenged the statute on two grounds:

That the statute impaired the obligation to contracts and that it took

private property without compensation. Justice Holmes, writing for

the majority, ignored the appellant's first contention and addressed

the issue as follows: Was the Kohler Act an exercise of the police

power designed to protect the people from the hazards of ground

subsidence, or mer@ly a means of obtaining a property right of the

coal company without having to pay for it? Was the legislature

atteinpting to accomplish by regulation what could only be accomplished

by eminent domain? Holmes held that the problem was one of line

drawing, that the.difference between valid regulation and taking is

one of degree, not of kind. "The general rule at least is, that while

property may be regulated to a certain extent, if the regulation goes

too far it will be recognized as a taking."(37) Holmes held that one

of the most important factors to be considered in determining the

limits of police,power regulation is the extent of diminution of value

of the property due to the regulation.(38) In sum, the question would

depend on the particular facts of the case. Holmes concluded that the

Kohler Act violated the Fifth Amendment because the act made it

commercially impractical to mine the coal, which was held to have the

same effect as appropriating it.

In Mahon, Holmes established the balancing tests as a method(39) to

determine the constitutionality of land use regulation. The societal

benefit of the regulation is to be balanced against the impact of

individual ownership of land, with diminution in value of the land to

be an important factor in the decision.(40) In 1926, another landmark

zoning case was decided. In Euclid v. Ambler Co.(41) a zoning ordinance

which the plantiff contended was unconstitutionally reducing the value

of his property and its marketability was upheld. The court stated,

"The police power also supports, generally speaking, an ordinance

forbidding the erection in designated residential districts, of

businesses, houses, retail stores and shops, and other like

establishments, also of apartment houses in detached house sections

since such ordinances, apart from special applications, can not be de-

clared clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, and without substantial re-

lation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."(42)

This judicial statement can be interpreted as support for most of the

zoning ordinances enacted by cities and counties today.

5.3.3.3 Four Tests Defined. State courts have not all

followed the balancing/diminution of value test employed by Holmes in

Mahon. Four tests have merged. These tests are: 1) the balancing

test, 2) the government enterprise, 3) the diminution in value test,

and 4) the denial of all reasonable use test. An analysis of these

tests for constitutionality of zoning regulations follows.

When a court employs the balancing test, compensation is due when

the benefit conferred on the public by the regulation is outweighed by

the loss sustained by the landowner. Thus, a regulation which appears

to confer only a marginal public benefit may be invalidated where the

loss to the individual landowner is great. Factors which are weighed

in the balancing test include: whether or not the restricted use

threatens public health, safety, or morals; whether the proposed use

would constitute a nuisance; whether the entire property or only a

portion of it is affected; whether or not a physical invasion of the

land occurs under the regulation; whether the use regulated is an

existing use or a future one;(43) and the extent of the regulation

diminished the value of the land.

The government enterprise test distinguishes a valid regulation

from one which constitutes a taking by examining the purpose for which

the regulation was imposed. Under this test, private losses sustained

due to regulations designed to resolve conflict within the private

sector of society are non-compensable, while losses resulting from

government regulations which enhance the value of some government

regulation require compensation.04) Put another way, the regulation
is a valid exercis'e" of police power if its purpose is to remedy a

public harm, but,"an unconstitutional taking if designed to confer a

public benefit.(45) Applying this analysis, a New Jersey wetlands

regulation was struck down in 1963 as an attempt to use private land

for a public benefit.(46)

Under the diminution in value test, compensation is due when the

enforcement of the regulation destroys all or substantially all of the

value of the property affected.(47) Except where the regulation is

reasonably related to the public health or safety, or where the use

prohibited would amount to a public nuisance, the courts applying this

rule have usually required compensation where the regulation destroys

all or substantially all the value of the property. This test can be

distinguished from the balancing test in that a taking will be found

without consideration of the public benefits where the loss is great,

unless public health or safety is involved.(48)

The denial of all reasonable use test is similar to the

diminution of value test. Where the regulation restricts the use of

property such that all "reasonable", "practical", or "beneficial" uses

of the land are denied, compensation is required.(49) At least one

court has interpreted the test as requiring the denial of profitable

use rather than the denial of any use.(50)

5.3.3.4 Examination of Virginia Case Law on Zoning. One

must note from the above discussion of tests employed that the test

selected by a state court has considerable impact of whether a land

use regulation is held to be an uncompensated taking or valid exercise

of police power. An analysis of recent zoning cases in Virginia to

determine the test currently being utilized by Virginia Courts is

therefore necessary. An analysis of Board of Supervisors v.

Allman,(51) Board of Supervisors v. Snell Construction Co.,(52) Board

of Supervisors v. Williams,(53) Boggs v. Board of Supervisors,(54) and

perhaps most importantly Board of Supervisors v. Rowe(55) yields the

following situations in which zoning regulations have been struck

down.

Case decisions demonstrate that the courts in Virginia have

struck down zoning ordinances as unreasonable, where the party

challenging the ordinance was able to show: 1) that contiguous or

similarly situated property has been zoned or rezoned for a different

use; 2) that the area around the property had changed since the

original classification; 3) that the zoning ordinance left the

landowner with no reasonable use for his property; 4) that the zoning

ordinance was exclusionary or discriminatory; 5) that the existing

ordinance failed to meet the needs of the community; 6) that public

facilities were adequate to support the requested rezoning; 7) that

the locality was zoning for aesthetic reasons; 8) that the purpose of

the ordinance was to reduce the cost of government; 9) that the

locality was zoning for socio-economic reasons; or 10) that the zoning

ordinance would cause a large financial loss and only a small public

benefit.

Virginia courts have evidenced a willingness to overturn zoning

ordinances for a variety of reasons. The actual test employed by the

court was perhaps@"best stated in Board of Supervisors v. Rowe.(56) In

this case the court held that a use regulation provided by for statue

may nonetheless be held unreasonable if the cumulative effect is so

overly burdensome as to constitute a taking of property without just

compensation. The court in Rowe set forth the nexus between the equal

protection and due process considerations raised in the review of the

reasonableness of zoning ordinances, stating:

"When a land use permitted to one landowner is restricted to
another similarly situated, the restriction is discriminatory,
and, if not substantially related to the public health, safety,
or welfare constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law.
A restriction on the right to use which thus denies equal
protection also constitutes a "taking" of one of the most
valuable components of the package of private rights, and absent
just compensation, such a taking is a denial of due process of
law."(57)

In conclusion, Virginia courts purport to apply a presumption of

reasonableness to zoning ordinances enacted by local legislative

bodies. However, recent decisions indicate that the Supreme Court of

Virginia has in fact abandoned this presumption in favor of an

expanded scope of review, which allows the court to substitute its

judgement for that of the local government. The test the courts have

been employing is similar to the diminution in value or denial of all

reasonable use tests discussed earlier. These tests, if applied to a

set-back ordinance, are likely to result in a determination that a

taking" has occurred. This difficulty will be examined in later

paragraphs. The Supreme Court's failure to enunciate the standards

which will govern its expanded scope of inquiry into local ordinances

has hindered local governing bodies in their attempts to enact zoning

ordinances which will withstand judicial challenge.

5.3.3.5 How Open Space Zoning Regulations and Coastal

Set-back Regulations Have Fared in Virginia and Other States. Because

open space zoning regulations have the characteristic of preventing or

severly restricting structural development in particular areas, they

differ significantly from the more conventional residential or

industrial zoning regulations discussed earlier. Since open space

zoning usually prohibits all permanent structural uses, they may

reduce land values much more than does conventional zoning. The

objective may not be the traditional one of protecting public health

or safety, and therefore less precedent can be found for the use of

the police power to serve these special objectives. While traditional

zoning may provide reciprocal benefits, open space zoning provides

less benefit, if any, to the affected landowners. These factors,

coupled with a history of judicial reasoning that the value of a

parcel of land is measured by its potential for development,(58) have

resulted in difficulty for open space zoning regulations when con-

fronted with a taking claim. While regulations which restrict

uses posing threats to public safety and health are likely to be

upheld,(59) where these factors are absent there is a greater judicial

resistence.(60) These regulations are particularly vulnerable where a

strict diminution' or denial of all reasonable use test is applied.

Gourts of Maine and Massachusetts have applied a diminution in

value test to find that denial of a permit application under those

states' wetlands-statutes was an uncompensated taking of private

property.(61) The rationale of the courts was that wetlands have

extraordinary commerical value, but almost no commercial value if one

was prohibited from filling or making other changes which would

destroy their unique natural value. Applying the government

enterprise test, the New Jersey Supreme Court reached the same

conclusion regarding a local wetlands ordinance.(62) A zoning amendment

which classified a parcel of land "flood plain district" and which

limited use to only open space uses was held to be a taking by the

Connecticut Supreme Court.(63) The court held that the zoning rendered

the use of the land impossible, and had depreciated the value of the

land by at least seventy-five percent.

Set-back ordinances and regulations designed to protect beaches

have fared better. As early as 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the

consitutionality of a building ordinance with set-back lines of

thirty-five feet intended primarily to preserve light and fresh air.(64)

However, set-back requirements will almost invariably be held to be a

denial of all reasonable use if no buildable space remains on the

parcel.(65) The courts will generally examine the entire parcel to

determine if reasonable use or value exist despite the set-back

restrictions. Deep set-backs have been upheld where the property has

been of sufficient size to provide buildable space outside the

set-back area.(66)

The following three cases illustrate judicial treatment of zoning

measures designed to protect the beach-dune interface. In McCarthey

v. City of Manhatten Beach(67), an owner of beach front property

challenged a local ordinance which restricted the use of his land to

recreational purposes. The owner contended that because the ordinance

permitted no permanent structures on the land, and because he intended

to erect houses on the land, the or dinance constituted a taking

without just compensation. In upholding the ordinance, the court

noted that the plaintiff had introduced no evidence relative to the

value of the property, either before or after the ordinance was

enacted, nor had the plaintiff shown that the property could not be

used valuably in conformance with the ordinance. The court also

pointed out that the property was from time to time covered by storm

waters and subject to erosion. Thus, the court seemed to base its

holding on two distinct grounds: that there was insufficient evidence

introduced by the owner to show denial of all reasonable use or the

requisite diminution in value, and that any structures on the land

would be inherently unsafe due to their location and the regulation

could be justified to protect future purchasers.(68)

Speigle v. Beach Haven(69) involved a local coastal construction

set-back line which limited construction between the designated

set-back line and mean high water mark. The purpose of the set-back

was to protect the.beaches and dunes from man induced erosion which

would aggravate property damage caused by waves and storm tides. The

plaintiff, in this case, owned four tracts of land, two of which were

evenly divided between buildable and nonbuildable land. The other two

parcels were located almost entirely seaward of the set-back line. In

upholding the ordinance, the New Jersey court relied on the

municipalities' unrebutted evidence of the danger posed to property

owners and the general public when construction occurred seaward of

the set-back line. The court also noted that the plaintiff had failed

to show a safe and economical use to which the property could be

put.(70)

In most recent of the three cases, Lemp v. Town Board of

Islip(71), the petitioner was denied a building permit to build a

residence on her Fire Island beach front property. The challenged

local-ordinance restricted uses in the beach/dune system to stairs

lookout platforms, and fences, unless a building permit was obtained

from the local planning commisssion. The stated purpose of the

ordinance was to safeguard life and property of the barrier beach.

The court used a balancing test and concluded that a taking had

resulted because the petitioner was denied all reasonable use of her

property. The court held that because of provisions in the ordinance,

the town must either grant the permit requested or institute

condemnation proceedings.(72)

The constitutionality of a coastal construction set-back line,

when confronted with a taking claim, depends upon the test employed by

a court and its predilections toward these types of land use

regulations. The Virginia Supreme Court has on numerous occasions

upheld the validity of building set-backs and open space perimeter

requirements. Set-backs have been upheld as reasonable to preserve

public health by providing sun light and fresh air(73), and to protect

against public danger from fire.(74) Decisions in other cases have

rested on the "public welfare" concept.(75) However, the Virginia

Supreme Court has held that set-back requirements will not be

sustained where they deny the owner all practical use of his

property.(76)

When considering a taking claim, the Virginia Supreme Court has

applied the closely related tests of diminution in value and denial of

all reasonable use. A discussion of the holdings in two recent cases.

will illustrate the application of these two tests. In Boggs v. Board

of Supervisors of Fairfax County(77), petitioner owned a parcel of land

that had been rezoned for single family residential use. The owner

argued that his land was unsuited for such use and offered.evidence to

show that an investment of $185,000 would be required before the land

would be suitable.for construction of single family dwellings.

Evidence was also introduced that this cost precluded develo pment and

that the rezoning had the effect of making the property unmarketable.

The Virginia Supreme Court held that, as the ordinance denied the

beneficial use of the property by precluding all practical uses, the

ordinance was invalid as to that property.(78)

Board of Supervisors of James City County v. R-owe(79) involved a

challenge to a local zoning ordinance limiting the.use of certain

parcels to hotels, motels, service stations, gift shops, antique

shops, and restaurints. The ordinance provided for a minimum lot

size, a building se ,t-back of seventy-five feet, and a requirement that

owners dedicate thd1outer fifty-five feet of the set-back for

construction of a gervice road. The court held that the dedication

for the -road would be generated by public traffic demands rather than

by demands created'by the development. Acknolwedging the authority of

the local government to adopt set-back restrictions, the court struck

down the seventy-five foot set-back as confiscatory. The court-relied

on evidence that the set-back provisions and open space requirements

would prohibit construction on twenty-nine percent of the affected

land, that portion having a market value of $1,959,167. The court

found that the ordinance rendered seventeen of the fifty-one lots

undevelopable. Finally, the court accepted evidence that the market

value of the property dropped from $2.69 per square foot to $1.50 per

square foot and that sales of those parcels stopped after the

ordinance went into effect.(80)

In neither case was a balancing test employed to weight the

social benefits against individual harm. Instead the court relied on

evidence indicating the decline in value of the land and the

restriction of uses. Because the tests applied have been diminution

in value or denial of all reasonable use, and because the courts have

relied on economic evidence to a large degree, it seems likely that a

set-back ordinance or other land use regulation which prohibited

construction on all or most of a parcel of land would constitute a

taking and if just compensation were absent would be ruled

unconstitutional.

Although it would appear that the Virginia Supreme Court looks

with disfavor upon regulations which limit development of private

land, the common law of Virginia has not unquestionably assumed that

development and economic growth are synonymous with public good. One

striking case which held contra is Southern Railway v. Richmond.(81)

In Southern Railway, a zoning action was upheld against a taking claim

on the ground that the zoning ordinance served to preserve the harmony

of the surrounding area. Compensation was denied despite substantial

financial loss to the railroad. This case is clearly the minority and

rather curious legal reasoning determined the outcome.

5.3.3.6 Tests for Valuation of Compensation Due a Landowner

When a Taking Has Occurred. If one assumes that a given hypothetical

regulation has been ruled on unconstitutional taking, the next

important question to consider is the economic impact such a finding

would have. Put another way, how much compensation will the State,

locality, or other governing body be required to pay the affected

landowner? The law of eminent domain is covered in Sections 25-46.1

through 25-253 of the Virginia Code. Complete procedures are spelled

out there, but for the present purposes setting out the valuation

tests and a quick explanation of the commissioner system will suffice.

Generally the amount of compensation due when property is taken

is the fair markei value of the property at the time of the taking.(82)

Fair market value'has been defined as the just compensation to which

the landowner is constitutionally entitled. Fair market value has

been judicially defined, in a definition similar to that of market

price used in economics, as the price which one under no compulsion is

willing to take for property which he has for sale, and, which another

under no compulsi@on, being desirous and able to buy, is willing to pay

for the property.(83)

When the property is merely damaged the test to be applied is the

difference in value immediately before and immediately after taking,

so interpreted as not to charge the owner with general benefits.(84)

Every circumstance, present or future, which changes the present value

of the property is to be considered in valuing the landowners' loss.

Procedurally the state must make an offer to purchase property

which it intends to take.(85) If this offer proves unacceptable to

the landowner, then either five or nine freeholders are appointed to

determine what the fair market value of the loss of damages are.(86)

The determination made by the freeholders or commissioners is treated

wi th great respect by the courts.(87)

5.3.3.7 Possible Ways to_Avoid the Taking Problem. It

seems likley that if a set-back or other type of land use regulation

were ruled a taking, the cost of compensating the landowner might

outweigh benefits for the public or locality as a whole. For this

reason possible strategies which would avoid this problem are

important.

One method immediately apparent is the variance approach. If a

landowner can show that the ordinance as applied to him would

constitute an uncompensated taking; a variance can be granted which

allows the landowner to proceed with the contemplated activity. This

could also be accomplished via a permit system under which permits

would only be issued for construction within the no-construction

zone when to withold the permit would operate as a "taking." A

criticism of this technique is that allowing for variances or permits

for construction in the no-construction zone would take the "teeth"

out of the ordinance.

Another approach could be to give the landowner an option between

accepting a setback or participating in a shoreline erosion control

project. In this case, shoreland owners could avoid a setback if they

participated in a control plan. In addition, financial incentives to

join the program could be incorporated. Whether this approach would

effectively alleviate the taking question is debatable, but such an

arrangement would have a much better chance of surviving judicial

scrutiny than would a less flexible approach.

ENDNOTES AND LITERATURE CITED

1) 1 H. Wood, "The Law of Nuisances" 675 (3d ed.).
2) Jubilee Yacht Club v. Gulf Refining Company, 140 N.E. 280 (1923).
3) KatenKamp v.'Union Realty Company, 6 Cal. 2d 765, 59 P2d 473
(1931)
4) Burwell v. Hobson 12 Grat. 53VA 322 (1855).
5) Paty v. To n of Palm Beach, 158 Fla. 575, 29 So. 2d 363 (1947).
6) Pitman v. U.S., Ct. of Claims No. 212-70(1972). (applying
Florida law).
7) Bedford v. U.S., 192 U.S. 217 (1904).
8) W. proser, The Law of Torts, Sec. 131 (1971).
9) Cohens v. Va.@, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
10) Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C:A. 1291 et seq.
11) Supra note 4.1
12) Cornwall v. The Commonwealth, 81 Va. 644 (1866).
13) Higginbotham's exis v. The Commonwealth, 25 Grat (66 Va.) 627
(1874).
14) Wilson v. State Highway Commissioner, 174 Va. 82, 4 S.E. 2d 746
(1939).
15) Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. 222, S.E. 2d 9 (1942).
16) Tunnel District v. Beecher, 202 Va. 452, 117 S.E. 2d 685 (1961).
17.) James A. Eichner, A Century of Tort Immunities in Virginia, 4 U.
of Richmond 238 (1970).
18) Heldt v. Tunnel District, Va. 477, 84 S.E. 2d 511 (1954).

19) Supra at note 7.
20) Supra at note 8.
21) Morris v. Tunnel District, 203 Va. 196, 123 S.E. 2d 398 (1962).
22) D. Ducsik, Shoreline for the Public, 152 (1974).
23) Kusler, "Open Space Zoning: Valid Regulation or Invalid
Taking?", 57 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1972).
24) C. Callier, d. _Coo@e_r, K. Eshaghi, and R. Wolfe, Guidelines for
Beach Construction with Special Reference to the Coastal
Construction Set-back Line (Feb. 1977) at 77.
25) Proposals for Coastal Resource Management in Virginia (Sept.
1977) at iii.
26) See Notes, "Zoning, Planning, and the Scope of Judicial Review in
Virginia," 25 Am. U. L. Rev. 497 (1976).
27) Va. Code Ann. 15.1-486 (1977) permits the governing body of any
county or locality to enact zoning ordinances and ". . . it may
regulate, restrict, permit, prohibit, and determine the
following: . . . (c) . . . and other open spaces to be left
unoccupied by uses and structures."
15.1-489 states: "Zoning ordinances shall be for the
general purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general
welfare of the public. . ."
15.1-489 also specifies safety from flood and protection
against loss of life due to flood as permissable zoning
objectives.
28) See Fla. Stat. Ann. 161.053, where power to establish coastal
construction set-back lines on a county basis is conferred upon
the Division of Marine Resources of the Florida Department of
Natural Resources.
29) For a description of the efforts involved in establishing a
coastal construction set-back line in the state of Florida, see
E. Olsden, "Northern St. Johns County Coastal Management Plan,"
Shore and Beach (June, 1976) at 29.
30) Chicago B. & L. Ry. v. Illinois ex rel Drainage Commissioners,
200 U.S. 561 (1906): Lawson v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 (1894).
31) U. S. Const. amend. XIV, 1.
32) U. S. Const. amend. V.
33) Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393 (1922).
34) Id.
35) Pennsylvania Public Law 1192.
36) J. Banta, F. Bosselman, and D. Callies,.The Taking Issue, (1973)
at pp. 126-129.
37) 260 U.S. at 415
38) 260 U.S. at 413
39) 260 U.S. at 414
40) Duscik, supra note 9 at 165.
41) City of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 385 (1926).
42) Id.
43) See Town of Hillsboro v. Smith,.276 N.S. 48, 170 S.E. 2d 904
(1969): Gibson v. City of Oberline, 171 Ohio St. 1, 167 N.E. 2d
651 (1960).
44) Sax, "Takings and the Police Power," 74.Yale L. J. 36 91964).

45) Ducsik, supra note 10 at 161.
46) Morris County Land Improvement Co. v. Township of Parsippany -
Troy Hills, 40 N.J. 539, 193 A.2d 232 (1963).
47) Note, "State and local Wetlands Regulation: The Problem of
Taking Without Just Compensation," 58 Va. L. Rev. 882, 886
(1972).
48) Id. at 887.
49) Kusler, supra note 2 at 36.
50) Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher, 278 N.Y. 222, 15 N.E.
2d 587 (1938).
51) Board of Supervisors v. Allman, 215 Va. 434, 211 S.E. 2d 48
(1975).
52) Board of Supervisors v. Smell Const. Co. 214 Va. 655, 202 S.E. 2d
893 (1974).
53) Board of Supervisors v. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33
(1975).
54) Boggs v. Board of Supervisors, 211 Va. 491, 178 S.E.2d 510.
55) Board of Supervisors v. Rowe, 216 Va. 128, 216 S.E.2d 199,
(1975).
56) Id.
57) -fd-.
58) ]Tr-ion, "Virginia Natural Resource Law and the New Virginia
Wetlands Act." 30 W. and L. L. Rev. 19, 26 (1973).
59) See Speigle v. Beach Haven, 46 N.J. 479, 218 A.2d 129 (1966);
McCarthy v. Manhatten Beach, 41 Cal. 2d 879, 264 P.2d 932 (1953),
cert. den. 348 U.S. 817 (1954).
60) Kusler, supra note 2 at pp. 6-22.
61) State v. Johnson, 265 A.2d 711 (Me. 1971); Commissioner of
Natural Resour ces v. Volpe, 349 Mass. 104, 206 N.E. 2d 666
(1965).
62) Morris County Land Development Co. v. Parsippany - Troy Hills
Township, 40 [email protected]. 539, 193 A.2d 232 (1963).
63) Dooley v. Town 'Plan and Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 304, 197
A.2d 77.0 (1964).
64) Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603 (1927).
65) Hoshour v. Contra Costa County, 203 Cal. App. 2d 602, 21 Cal.
Rptr. 714 (1962); Oschin v. Township of Redford, 315 Mich. 359,
24 N.W.2d 152.(1946); Faucher v. Building Inspector, 321 Mich.
193, 32 N.W.2d 440 (1948).
66) Kusler, supra note 2 at 56.
67) 41 Cal. 2d 879, 264 P.2d 932 (1953), cert. den. 348 U.S. 817
(1954).
68) Id.
69) 46 N.J. 479, 218 A.2d 129 (1966).
70) Id.
71) 394 N.Y.S.2d 517 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk County, April 1, 1977).
72) Id.
73) Nusbaum v. Norfolk@ 151 Va. 801,, 145 S.E. 257 (1928).
74) Gorieb v. Fox, 145 Va. 554, 134 S.E. 914, aff'd 274 U.S. 603
(1926).
75) French v. Town of Clintwood, 203 Va. 562, 125 S.E. 2d 798 (1962).

76) Board of Supervisors of James City County v. Rowe, 216 Va. 1218,
216 S.E. 2d 199 (1975).
77) 211 Va. 488, 178 S.E. 2d 508 (1971).
78) Id.
79) 216 Va. 128, 216 S.E.2d 199 (1975).
80) Id.
81) See Southern Ry. v. Richmond, 205 Va. 699, 139 S.E.2d 82 (1964);
G.L. Webster Co. v. Steelman) 172 Va. 342, 1 S.E.2d 305 (1939);
Arminius Chemical Co. v. Landrum, 113 Va.7, 73 S.E. 459 (1912).
But see American Cyanamida v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 831, 48
(1948).
82) Hunter v. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. 107 Va. 158, 59 S.E. 415 (1907);
State Highway Comm. v. Crockett, 203 Va. 796, 127 S.E.2d 354
(1962).
83) Talbot v. Norfolk, 158 Va. 387, 163 S.E. 100, (1932); Appalachian
Power Co. v. Anderson, 212 Va. 705, 187 S.E.2d 148 (1972).
84) Richmond & M. Ry. Co. v. Humphreys, 90 Va. 425, 185.E 901 (1894);
State Hwy. Comm. v. Crockett, 203 Va. 796, 127 S.E.2d 354 (1962);
Appalachian Power Co. v. Anderson, 212 Va. 705, 187 S.E.2d 148
(1972).
85) See Generally, Va. Code Ann. 25-46 to 25-254.
86) Id.
87) Id.

CHAPTER 6

ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF EROSION:

A PILOT STUDY IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY

6.1 Details of Procedures for Technical Assessment of Options.

The technical analysis of the shoreline and the formulation of

options for the management or mitigation of erosion problems is a

complex task consisting of several interlocking parts. First the

basic, raw information or data concerning the area in question must be

collected. That data must then be arranged, edited, or manipulated

into meaningful groups. This process may itself generate the need for

the collection of additional data. Finally the data must be analyzed

and interpreted so that management options can be formulated and

analyzed and entered into the economic model. The pilot study in

Middlesex County was designed as a "learning" tool and as an example

of the process. The general process and the specific study are

described separately. Rather, the general process is described by an

explanation of the methods used in performing the pilot study.

6.1.1 Data Acquisition. The first combined step in data

acquisition and analysis is to acquire current 7 1/2 minute (1 to

24,000 scale) topographic maps and the N.O.S. Hydrographic (Nautical)

charts of the area and to delineate the shoreline reaches. Because a

reach is a relatively independent unit and because any action within a

reach is likely td affect other portions within the reach, the reach

is the appropriate unit of the study. Individuals experienced in

working with shoreline processes should be able to give at least

preliminary reach delineations from the topographic maps. Analysis of

additional data may necessitate minor changes in reach boundaries.

The Middlesex County study area is depicted on the Wilton and

Deltaville 7-1/2 minute topographic maps (Fig. 1). We elected to

study three reaches. Reach 1 extends approximately 12,000 feet from

the mouth of Mill Creek to Bush Park Creek, Reach 2 extends 14,700

feet from Bush Park Creek to Sturgeon Creek, and Reach 3 is

approximately 9,300 feet of shoreline around Stingray Point.

As the pilot study was conceived as a learning tool as well as an

example of the analytical process, we chose to examine areas with

differing land use characteristics for various reasons such as general

familiarity with the area, available information, logistical

considerations and location within the Middle Penninsula Planning

District, we decided upon Middlesex County. In choosing specific

sub-areas of the county we looked for areas that were undeveloped,

established, or developing, and that had eroding shorelines. The

active shoreline constraint limited our search to the Rappahannock

River and Chesapeake Bay areas of the county. Most of the shore areas

along the Piankatank River and along the many creeks would not have a

shoreline that was physically active to the degree needed to justify

an erosion study.

As by definition a reach is a relatively closed unit, it should,

at a minimum, contain an area of erosion and an area of deposition; or

there might be significant communication with the offshore but only

Parrott 14
ISIand 16

co
FJID
9

Lqht@

9 10
7 12
14 1
p 5 16
is
19
20
21
22 ------------
23
24 39 40
26 27 2B 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 30 43 44 45 46 47
48 49
51
52
53 55 56
54
57
58
59
v,
c- 60
a 1 62

A, Ii., -.

Deltaville

flat
In

nc@
9

In
wilton
C." 9
L
Ruark

C)
s1, h,,g

31,nd o,nt a F I S B I N (11

B A Y
tight

Ginney SEX co 6
Pt mm co -
Pond A A, A,
I Tidal FW
Pt cr)
Roane
Pt

Stove Point
o" ,on
Pt Iron Point
@,c
4

4-0

FIGURE 1. COMPOSITE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF STUDY AREA WITH

limited alongshore communication between littoral systems. On that

basis we may divide a reach into segments. Each zone of erosion or of

deposition or intermediate areas, if any, being a separate segment.

Reach I was interesting because it offered a dynamic shoreline as

evidenced by eroding high bluffs (figs. 2 and 3) and a history of

erosion indicated by earlier studies. Beginning with the bluff zone

we began our search for reach boundaries. Differential accumulation

of sediment against the groins near the bluff area indicated that very

little, if any, sediment moved from the east of the bluff zone. The

entranceto Bush Park Creek (Fig. 4) has a small spit growing toward

the east. Also the jetty on the east side of Woods Creek, which is a

few yards from Bush Park Creek, appeared to be an efficient trap for

any material moving east,to west. Therefore the Bush Park Creek-Woods

Creek mouth area is a logical reach boundary as little sediment

appeared to move across it.

Moving west from the bluff area sediment appeared able to move

without'natural impediment to the mouth of Mill Creek. The area
between Greys Point (the Norris Bridge) and Mill Creek appeared to be

relatively inactive. In any event there was no evidence of

communication betw6en the shore adjacent to the bluff area and the

area across the mouth of Mill Creek. Thus Mill Creek is the other

,boundary of the reach.

Within the reach, segment divisions fill out fairly readily. The

mouth to the creek is itself a sediment trap and is obviously

101

..... ........ ...... . ..... .........
!W00@0"'n
Y14

-J4,
Iliq 4
it'll,
4,41 1 1 q 1 1, " - 171 - , I
4, ,, I .. I lt!@
It

3i
-4 W"Ola's

4 C1,

FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3

FIGURE 2: Vertical photograph of a portion of Segment 3 of Reach 1.
The filling of the groins indicates a right-to-left (east to west)
longshore transport.

FIGURE 3: An oblique photograph of the central shoreline portion
shown in Figure 2. The oblique shows the bluff better than does
the vertical. Also the raw, unvegetated bluff, an obvious sediment
source, is seen not to supply material for filling the groins; thus
longshore transport must be east to west.

different from the adjacent shoreline. The low spit-like section east

of the bluffs and the bluff area itself are obvious separate units.

The area west of the bluffs and east of the Duck Pond mini-barrier is

a segment in part.by virtue of its location between the obvious

segments-of the bluff and the Duck Pond mini-barrier or marsh front

beach. The area between the Duck Pond segment (Fig. 5) and the New

Mill Creek Wharf near the terminus of route 627 appears somewhat

different.in morphology and process from the area between it and Mill

Creek, hence they became separate segments.

The area now designated as Reach 2 was chosen because it is a

stretch of shore that is experiencing residential development.

Observation of the many and varied attempts at shore protection

indicated that the area had, at least in part, a dynamic shoreline.

Here the reach boundaries were fairly easy to define. The Bush Park

Creek mouth had already been determined as reach boundary during the

consideration of Reach 1. Looking to the east, the two possibilities

for reach boundaries are Hunting Creek and Sturgeon Creek.

Observation of the' oblique photographs lead one to believe that there

is a reasonable amount of interaction between the littoral systems on

either side of Hunting Creek. Therefore Hunting Creek is not a reach

boundary. On the otherhand, the spit 'growing east into Sturgeon Creek

and jetty at the..eastern shore of Sturgeon Creek indicate that the

creek is a suitable reach limit. Reach 2 was divided into five

segments. The central segment of the reach is shown in Figure 6. A

comparison of the reach descriptions of the Description and Analysis

103

FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5

FIGURE 4: Segments I and 2 of Reach 1, the dredged entrance to Bush
Park Creek. The eastern (right) jetty of the large dredged channel
appears to be a major barrier to longshore transport and is the
boundary between Reach 1 and Reach 2. The large white area in the
bottom center of the photograph is a spoil disposal site.

FIGURE 5: Segment 5 and portions of Segments 4 and 6 of Reach 1.
Segment 5 is a low barrier which separates the ponds from the
river. Even though the groins have trapped some sand and widened
the break, the area is not suitable for development.

of Options sheet and the topographic map in Figure 1, will provide an

adequate explanation of segment definition.

For a third area, we wanted a fairly highly developed area. The

Stingray Point area adjacent to Sturgeon Creek (Figs. 7, 8, and 9)

fulfilled the lines of an erosion prone shoreline backed by

developm ent. Again one boundary, Sturgeon Creek, was already defined.

The other boundary was determined by study of the maps and

photographs. There appears to be little communication across the

first dove south of the end of Route 33. This cove was chosen as the

other limit of Reach 3. As the problems and character of Reach 3 are

constant, the reach was not divided into segments.

To obtain erosion rates, both long-term averages and short-term

variability, it is necessary to assemble as complete a library of

historicalmaps, charts and photographs of the area as possible.

Additionally,, recent oblique and vertical photography should be and

were acquired. As will be discussed in later paragraphs, the plan

data can.be.rectified to a common scale so as to determine locations

and rates of shoreline change. For the pilot study, we were able to

obtai n maps or charts from the periods 1851 to 1856, 1907 to 1908, and

1942. All were film base positives that previously had been rectified

to a scale of 1 to 20,000. We then traced the three shorelines onto

tracing paper using road intersections or other similar "permanent"

land marks to assure proper registration of the images. This enabled

us to see the relative position of the shoreline at each of the three

time periods.

105

X-1
PRIM
tk

WNW

. ..... . . ...... .. . ...... ..
FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7

FIGURE 6: A vertical photograph of Segment 3 in Reach 2. The one
area of significant accretion in the Reach. The shoreline prograda-
tion accentuates the degree to which the houses are set back from
the shore.

FIGURE 7: An oblique view of the spit that has grown westward from
Stingray Point, Reach 3, toward Broad Creek. The irregular shore-
line and the varying lengths and spacings of the groins are evidence
of the non-uniform approach to shore protection that has been
followed.

777-71, @711T11 MM531'_,,_Mp@
1 A
% 4p;
i F!t
"a, em.
5@z 5,
Mp-
",Lw
Z,
0
p Py r W,
P-gOE
M
74Z Eli,
V,
A",
@,d
41 - ?L % ;I
"NA
45W -0,
*:K,

8AV,&
@ A'w
k
ft;t

0, YFP@74
'0 vw
Tb'

FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9

FIGURE 8: A vertical photograph of the central portion of Reach 3.

FIGURE 9: An oblique photograph of the area in the upper center por-
tion of Figure 8. It is much easier to see the nature of the riprap
protection here than it is in the vertical.

To quantify the shoreline change the 1942 shoreline as a base and

plotted transects perpendicular to the shoreline at 500-foot intervals

were then plotted. The displacement of the shoreline was plotted at

each transect.

More recent shoreline changes were determined by comparison of

aerial photographs. Black and white, 9-inch, aerial mapping imagery

from 1937, 1960, and 1968 were compared to enlargements of black and

white 70 mm vertical imagery made for this project. Figures 2, 4, 5,

6, and 8 are examples of this photography. The 1978 prints were used

as a base upon which the other images were superimposed allowing

measurement of shoreline change. The superimposition was accomplished

using either a Bausch and Lomb ZT-4H Zoom Transfer Scope (ZTS) or an

Art-O-Graph Model 55-C Map-O-Graph, which is a reflecting, opaque

projector. The ZTS serviced only very small areas requiring frequent

adjustment and re-registration of the images whereas the Map-O-Graph

displayed larger areas necessitating less frequent adjustments but

required greater time for each set up and registration. In both

instances the process is simplified if the images to be compared are

of nearly the same scale. If the equipment had been available, the

comparisons would have been made with the use of a graphic digitizer

and computer plotter. The Erosion/Insurance Study conducted by the

Erosion/Hazard Management Subcommittee of the Great Lakes Basin

Commission Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Management (1978)

contains a review and analysis of the several methods of map and photo

comparison. As with the older maps and charts, it is necessary to use

108

common land marks to register the images with one another. Because

much shoreline development has taken place in recent years, the 1968

and 1978 photographs had a greater number of land marks (roads, etc.)

than the 1960 and 1937 photographs. Thus the greater field of view of

the Map-O-Graph gave it a distinct advantage over the ZTS when

comparing the older images. Using the ZTS it was frequently necessary

to use field or tree lines and dirt trails whereas using the

Map-O-Graph more roads were able to be used.

A series of transects at 500-foot intervals, similar to that

described for the 1942 charts, was drawn on the current Deltaville

(1964) and Wilton (1964, photorevised 1973) topographic maps. The

transects were then transferred to the 1978 imagery allowing

measurements of shoreline retreat to be made. Although the transects

on the topographic'sheets do not directly coincide with those on the

1942 charts, they are close enough to allow interpolation. Table 4

and other tables in this chapter use the transect numbers of the most

recent maps. The rates of the shoreline retreat can be determined by

simple division of linear retreat by time.

The photos were also used to inventory the structures along the

shoreline at diffe rent times. As evidenced by Table 5, much of the

shoreline development has occurred since 1960.

While the maps and photo analyses were being performed in the

lab, other persons were in the field or were studying the oblique and

the vertical photographs preparatory to going into the field.

109

Even though they cannot be readily used for measurement, the

oblique photographs are often more serviceable than the verticals for

the interpretation of coastal processes. Field investigations are

needed for verification of the impressions gained from the imagery,

for sediment sampling, and for the determination of the integrity of

shore protection structures. Although difficult or impossible to

quantify, the value of on-site investigation cannot be underestimated.

6.1.2 Data Analysis. When all the data has been assembled it is

possible to obtain (1) the overall picture of erosion in the reach and

(2) the variation in processes across the reach.

On the joint basis of general observation of the shoreline

geomorphology, the differential accumulation of sediment against

groins, and the consideration of fetch and wind, we determined that

the direct net of longshore drift is upstream, that is east to west.

Thus any action taken along the shore will most likely have the

greatest secondary impact on the segment(s) to the west. Therefore in

our consideration of the area we "thought" from east to west. That

is, if a segment were eroding and it were proposed to halt that

erosion, say by construction of a seawall, after considering the very

local consequences of the construction of a structure, e.g. seawall,

the impact on the next segment down drift must be considered. For

example, Segment 3 of Reach 1, in the pilot study area, is an area. of

bluffs eroding at an average rate of over a foot per year. By

determining the percent of the bluff sediment that is sand, and thus

is likely to remain on the beach, and by calculating the volume of

110

material eroded from the bluff yearly, it is possible to estimate the

quantity of sand made available to the longshore system. Here we

estimated 23,400 cubic yards of sand per year. If this material were

not available to the longshore system, (1) the beach*in Segment 3

would be consumed, (2) the erosion of Segment 4 would increase, and

(3) the beach in Segment 4 also might be consumed. Possibly the

increased erosion would carry through to include Segments 5, 6, and 7

as well.

The study approach has been to suggest possible shore protection

actions, if necessary, for a segment, to estimate the cost of con-

struction, and to assess the benefits and problems of the suggested

action. Then our attention is given to the next segment downdrift and

its problems were analyzed in the light of the proposed action in the

adjacent segment. We continued this process throughout the segment

for a number of courses of action. Because this pilot study is

intended for wider use than the study area, we added the theoretical

condition of larger erosion rates for analysis as well.

6.1.3 Results of Physical Aspects of-Pilot Study. The following

pages present much of the data and analytical results of the physical

aspects of the pilot study. The data include descriptions of segments

and options for the three reaches, erosion rates by period and

transect (Table 4), a list of shoreline structures (Table 5), and

lengths of artifically stabilized areas around Stingray Point (Table

6).

REACH 1. BUSH PARK CREEK TO MILL CREEK - DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS

SEGMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUNM&RY

LOCATION Entrance to Bush Park Spit section west of Farmed bluff area (17-23) From western limit of (3) West from Rt. 628 to end From western limit of (5) From Rt. 627 to entrance
(TRANSECTS) Creek (25) entrance (23,24) to Rt. 628 (Duck Pond's of Duck Pond region (7- to Rt. 627, New Mill to Mill Creek (1-5)
Point) (11-17) 11) Creek Wharf (5-7)

LENGTH Approximately 300 feet 700 feet 2,600 feet 3,700 feet 1,800 feet 1,100 feet 1,807 feet 12,000 feet
EROSION RATES The average historical The average historical The average historical The average historical The average historical The average historical The @Ierage historical
erosion rates are: erosion (from west to erosion rates are: erosion rates are: erosion rates are: erosion rates are: erosion rates are:
1851-1942: 0.6 ft./yr. east) are: 1851-1942: No change at 1851-1942: Accretion of 1851-1942: Erosion rang- 1851-1942: Erosion rang- 1851@1942: Erosion rang-
1907-1942: 0.9 ft./yr. 1851-1942: 0-0.4 ft./yr. extremes to 1.3 ft./yr. 1.1 ft./yr for east sec- ing from 1.1-3.1 ft./yr. ing from 1.8 ft./yr. at ing tram 0.6-1.8 ft./yr.
1907-1942:2.4-0.9 ft./yr. toward middle. tion; erosion ranging 1907-1942: No data. the extremes to 2.0 ft./ 1907IT1942: No data.
1960-1978:2.8-1.7 ft./yr. 1909-1942: No data for from 0.9-1.3 ft./yr. for 1960-1978: No data for yr. at the center. 1960-'1978: No data.
west section; slight ac- remaining area. western section, erosion 1907-1942: No data.
cretion at middle, ero- 1909-1942: No data. of 3.9 ft./yr. at the mid- 1960-1978: No data.
sion to 2.4 ft./yr. for 1960-1978: Accretion of dle, accretion of 3.3 ft./
the east section. 1.1 ft./yr. at the mid- yr. toward the east.
1960-1978: Erosion along dle, minor erosion in the
entire section ranging west section, erosion
from 1.1-4.4 ft./yr. ranging from 1.1-3.3 ft./
yr. in the east section.
Acts as sand trap for Low-lying subject to re- High, up to 35 feet, Low. Subject to tidal Low spit. Subject to Low shore, no develop- Low 1hore, western hal .f
COMMENTS
westward net littoral treat due to updrift bluffs, upper portion very flooding. Pre-1800 ac- tidal flooding hazard. ment yet, receives sand is narrow beach.
drift. Frequent dredg- trapping of littoral sandy with lower silty, cretion. Some develop- NOT DEVELOPABLE. Pre- from (5) and east.
ing is required at an drift. Some hazard from fossiliferous strata. ment. Several groins, 1800 accretion.
estimated 500 cu. yds. tidal flooding. Gener- Erosion supplies approxi- 200+ feet of bulkhead.
per year. Inlet was ally not suitable for mately 2,400 cu. yds. of A few piers.
altered and jettied in development without sig- sand (worth $10,800 at
1970. nificant alteration. $14.50 per cu. yd.) per
foot of bluff retreat.
There are approximately 8
groins in the segment.
SOURCE

REACH 1 - OPTION 1

SEGMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUMMARY

PREFERRED equire dredged sand be No structural modifica- No structural modifica- Field of low profile No shoreface structures. No shoreface structures. No s oreface structures A program of limited ae-
placed on downdrift (west- tion. Inhibit develop- i to
ACTION tion to shore face. Re- groins approximately 60 exce t a terminal groin tion to moderate but not
ward) beaches. ment. verse grade and drain ft. long, 90 ft. apart, or j"etty at western limit halt erosion. The pro-
bluff crest. Would re- with an anticipated 15- of egment. gram has a minimum of
quire a "set back" on year life span. New negative downdrift con-
new construction. fastland development to sequences. It is, in
flood resistant or flood part, the completion of
proof standards. the present approach.
Minimal dredging, 2,600
feet of bluff crest work,
41 groins with spoilers.

ESTIKATED 500 cu. yds. per year at $5.00 per foot for drain- Approximately 40 groins, 1 3 O-foot (minimum) $125,550, or $10.46 per
COSTS $4.50 per cu. yd. $2,250 age and grading, $13,000. 60 ft. long at $25 per groiln at $35 per foot foot, or $0.70 per foot
per year or $33,750 for (See value of erosion foot plus $200 spoilers plus 1$300 spoiler. per year for 15 years.
15 years. products above). Or ap- on each groin. $68,000. $10,1800 with a 15-year
Or, counting minor main-
proximately $0.33 per life or $700 per year
foot per year for a 15- tenance , $1.25 per foot wit minimum ma ntenance.
year life span. per year for the 15-year
life span. Cost does not
consider contribution of
existing structures.
BENEFITS Supplies sand nourishment Only benefits are pas- Area continues to be a Decreases shoreline re- Passive benefits only. Passive benefits only. Trap Is last of material in A trade off. Erosion is
worth $2,250 per year to sive in that there are no supply of material for treat. Holds a good rec- lon@shore drift building allowed to continue but
an eroding area. Compen- negative consequences as- downdrift beaches. Ero- reational beach which, in a beach and lessening is diminished. The struc-
sates for the interrup- sociated with structures. sion is slightly dimin- turn, offers some pro- erosion. Cost equivalent tures serve to maximize
tion caused by the jet- Area benefits from action ished. tection from storms and of @4.50 for each cu. yd. the benefits of erosion.
ties to the natural lit- for Segment 1. flooding. Also as they trapped. Lessens filling
toral drift. fill, they pass sediment of Mill Creek thus de-
to downdrift areas. creasing need for dredg-
ing lof public boating
are at $4.50 per cu. yd.
Imp@loves shelter to Mill
Cre

PROBLEMS Minimal. Might cause a Does nothing to lessen Erosion is only minimally Does not halt erosion or Does not reduce erosion. Dces not reduce erosion. Non Land secontrols set
slight increase in local erosion. Is in effect a diminished. Alternate significantly lessen the T backsu- may be required
turbidity at time of prohibition to develop- uses of fastland are hazard of tidal flooding. for"unprotected" areas.
dredging. Prohibits al- ment; a diminuation of restricted. Does not protect against
ternate use of dredge alternate land use capa- severe events. Tnitia-
spoil. Would require re- bilities. tion of the groin field
consideration if material probably necessitates its
became too silty. completion. New building
to "flood resistant"
standards is probably
more expensive.

REACH 1 - OPTION 2

SEGMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUMMARY

ALTERNATIVE As above. As above. As above plus low profile As above. At a minimum, As above. As above. As above except stone A more active program of
ACTION groins 60 feet long, 90 however hardening of the groin, plus hardening - shoreline stabilization
feet apart, estimated 15- shoreline might be re- f1prap - of shore to +5 with greater downdrift
year life. quired. et MHW. problems and cost.

ESTIMATED As above, $2,250 per year As above. $13,000 as above, plus $68,000 as above and/or As above. As above. 1 800 feet of stone work $462,650 or $38.58 per
COSTS or $33,750 for 15 years. 28 groins 60 feet long at riprapping to +5 feet a $65 per foot, $117,000 foot or $2.37 per foot per
$25 per foot plus $200 MHW at $65 per foot, 50 p us jetties and spoilers year, for 15 years, less
spoilers on each, or year life. $240,500 if a above, $10,800, residual value of stone
$47,600, total $60,600 or paid for in 15 years, $127,800 total. work.
$4,040 per year. $16,000 per year or $4.33
per foot per year.

BENEFITS As above. As above. Reduces erosion of bluff If-groins only, benefit As above. As above. As above, plus stabilizes Erosion of bluffs is re-
estimate by k, reduces is as above but dimin- S@oreline for approxi- duced. Some portions of
setback distance. ished. If riprap, ero- mately 50 years. shoreline are stabilized
sion is halted for ap- for approximately 50
proximately 50 years. years.

PROBLEMS As above. As above. Reduces sediment contrib- Shorter lift span for Future of area uncertain, As above. Ex Increased expense. Loss
,pense.
ution of bluffs to down- groins. Loss of beach. as quantity of sand sup- of some beaches. The
drift system, thus ac- Expense of riprap. plied by longshore drift lessening of erosion in
celerating downdrift ero- is reduced. one area, accelerates it
sion perhaps requiring in another requiring in-
riprap. Terminal groin creased protection.
effect.
@a

REACH 1 OPTION 3

SEGMENT 2 3 4 5 6 7 SUMMARY

If Erosion
Were Over 3
Feet per
Year

A:
PREFERRED As above. As above. No shoreface structures. Groin field as I above, No structures. No shoreface structures. No shoreface structures
Significant setback but a diminished life except terminal groin or
ACTION requirement. time, 10 years maximum. jetty.

ESTIMATED $2,250 per year for 10 As above. As above. $68,000 over 10 year As above. As above. $10,800 over 10 year $101,000 for 10 years,
I
life. life. or $0.84 per foot per
COSTS years. year.

BENEFITS As above. As above. Area continues as a sup- Relatively low cost. As above. As above. As in preferred action Minimal.
ply of sediment. Erosion is slowed. above.

PROBLEMS As above. As above. Area continues to erode Erosion is only dimih- As above. As above. As above Erosion is only mini-
at a great rate. Sig- ished. Relatively short mally diminished.
nificant setback is re- lift span of groins.
quired.

B: groin of stone Major protection effort.
ALTERNATIVE As above. As above. Major revetment of bluff Revetment. Possible need for revet- Possible need.for revet- Terminal
ACTION with riprap, reverse ment if loss of updrift ment. and possible need for
grade and drainage, etc. source causes accelerated revetment.
erosion.

ESTIMATED $2,250 per year, 40 years As above. Revetment to +9 feet MHW, Revetment at $120 per Revetment if needed at Revetment if needed at Revetment if needed and $1,372,000 for 40 years,
COST $90,000. slope work, etc., $130 foot, $444,000. $100 per foot, $18,000. $100 per footp $110,000. groin at $100 per foot, or $34,300 per year or
per foot, $338,000. $no'000. $114.59 per foot, $2.89
per foot per year.

BENEFITS As above. As above. Erosion is halted for Erosion is halted for Erosion is halted for Erosion is halted for Erosion is halted for Erosion is halted.
40+ years. 40+ years. 40+ years. 40+ years. 40+ years'.

PROBLEMS As above. As above. Area is lost as a sedi- Beaches are sacrificed. Probable need to riprap, Possible need to riprap, As above; Expensive. Loss of
ment source, beaches are loss of beaches. beaches are sacrificed. beaches.
sacrificed. Great cost.

REACH 2. STURGEON CREEK TO BUSH PARK CREEK DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS

SEGMENT 2 3 4 5 SUMMARY

LOCATION Between Sturgeon and Hunting Bluff area west of Hunting Beach area near Rt. 631 (36-44). First half of bluff area west of From western limit of 4
(TRANSECTS) Creeks (49-53). Creek (44-48). Rt. 631 (30-36). Park Creek (25-30). to Bush

LENGTH 2,,500 feet. 3,200 feet. 3,500 feet. 2,500 feet. 3,000 feet. 14,700 feet.

EROSION General long term moderate ero- General slight erosion, average 1851 to 1942 major accretion, General moderate to slight ero- Usually slight average erosion,
HISTORY sion, usually averaging over 1.5 rates normally under 1.5 feet some averages exceeding 5 feet sion with averages approaching average rates approximately I
feet per year. per year. per year. More recently stable 1.5 feet per year. foot per year.
or very slight erosion.

COMMENTS A source area but possibly of The low area adjacent to Hunting Area of major accretion is prob- Erosional bluff supplys an esti- Similar to 4, except drift to Sturgeon Creek is a
insufficient magnitude to justi- Creek is not suitable for ably anchored by "ancient" mated 3,000 cu. yds. of sand to west may dominate. Most of area natural boundary
fy groins. There already are development. The erosional (1950s) structure. An excellent bidirectional longshore drift has groins, there are many where the jetties at
several hundred feet of bulkhead bluff area already has approxi- beach area. Tidal flooding a for each foot of retreat. Many bulkheads. If it were desired Bush Park Creek form
and I groin. Hunting Creek is mately 25 groins. A sediment threat only in extreme storms. groins and some bulkhead. one to develop Woods Creek, access an artificial boun-
jettied. source. area is riprapped. Development should be through Bush Park dary.
is generally set back from bluff Creek entrance, closing the
crests. natural mouth of Woods Creek.

OPTIONS

ACTION No shoreface structures. A set- Leave as is with law profile No shoreface structures. 1) Low profile groins in areas (Area already protected by A moderate approach
back on new construction. Sand groins. if able, vegetate not now so protected. groins) using existing struc-
dredged from Hunting Creek bluff. Control access over 2) Setback line at bluff crest. 1) Control drainage and access tures.
should be used to nourish bluff. Perhaps add spoilers to 3) Reverse grade and control over bluff.
beaches, preperably on west side. groins or build a sill. drainage over bluff crest. 2) Vegetate raw bluff.
4) Vegetate raw slopes. 3) Setback on new construction.
4) Establish bulkhead line near
bluff face.

ESTIMATED Dredging of Hunting Creek mouth, Spoilers: 23 at $200 each, Bluff crest work at $5.00 per Bluff crest work at $5.00 per $42,700 for a 15-
COSTS $450 per cu. yd. $5,000, 15-year life for groins foot, $12,500. 6 groins 60 feet foot, $15,000. year life or $10.20
and spoilers. long at $25.00 per foot, plus per foot per year.
Sill: $15 per foot, 10-year spoilers, $10,200 for a 15-year If segment 3 is not
life. life, counted, $0.25 per
Ifoot per year.
I

BENEFITS Passive benefits only, except Erosion diminished by (an esti- Area remains an excellent rec- Area remains a sediment source Existing structures are utilized Erosion is moderated
for nourishment from dredging. mated) half. Area remains a reational beach. both for 3 and 5. Erosion is Over bluff erosion is reduced, with a minimum of
Value of benefit balances cost source of some sediment, Beach- diminished. Existing structures Bulkhead line might tend to de- problems.
of dredging. Area remains a es are maintained. are utilized. over bluff erosion crease flanking failures.
source. is reduced.

P11OBLEMS Erosion is unchecked. Erosion is only decreased. None. Erosion is not stopped. Value of In future, bulkhead line might Minimal. Erosion is
source is diminished. include some state bottoms. not halted.

ACTION Dredge Hunting Creek as above. Revet area to +5 feet MHW. 40- No shoreface structures. Revet area to at least +5 MHW. Revet area to at least +5 feet General shoreline
Revet area to +5 MHW. 40-year year life. Reverse grade and drain bluff as MHW. Reverse grade and drain stabilization.
life. above. bluff as above. Extend jetties
at Bush Park Creek.

ESTIMATED 2,500 feet at $65.00 per foot, 3,200 feet at $65.00 per foot, 2,500 feet at $65.60 per foot, 3,000 feet at $65.00 per foot, $765,000 with a 40-
COSTS $162,500. $208,000. $162,500 plus 12,500 from above, $195,000 plus $15,00D from year life or @1.30
$175,000. above, plus 100 feet of jetty per foot per year,
at $100 per foot, $10,000, total or $1.60 per foot
$220,000. per year if segment
3 is not counted.

BENEFITS The shoreline is stabilized. The shoreline is stabilized. The shoreline is stabilized. The shoreline is stabilized.

PROBLEMS The area is lost as a sediment The area is lost as a sediment Future of beach uncertain. Area is lost as a sediment. Loss Area is lost as a sediment
source. Loss of beach. source, loss of beach possibly Source. of beach. source. Loss of beach.
threatening the beach in 3.

11' EROSION
T,ERE DOUBLE:

ACTION Revetment to +8 feet MHW and Revetment to +8 feet MRW and Possibly 30 groins, 90 feet long Revetment to +8 feet MHW and Revetment to +8 feet MW and Major protection.
bluff crest work. Bypass mate- bluff crest work. 120 feet apart, set 30 feet back bluff crest work. bluff crest work. 200-foot Estimated 40-year
rial dredged from Hunting Creek. into beach, plus spoilers. jetty at Bush Park Creek. life.

ESTIMATED Revetment at $110 per foot, bluff Same unit cost as in 1, $30.00 per foot of groin, Same unit cost as 1, $287,500. Same unit cost as 1, $345,000 $1,405,000 or $2.40
COSTS crest work at $5.00 per foot $368,000. $81,000 plus spoilers at $12.00 plus 200 feet of jetty at $150 per foor per year.
$287,500. each, $6,000, $87,000 total. per foot, $301,000, $375,000
total.

BENEFITS The shoreline is stabilized. Beach erosion is diminished. The shoreline is stabilized. The shoreline is stabilized.

PROBLEMS If any portion is protected, all Same as 1. Future uncertain. Terminal Same as 1. Same as 1.
must be. Area lost as source. groin problems.
Uniform protection might neces-
sitate some use of state bottoms.
Loss of beach.

REACH 3 - STINGRAY POINT

DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS

LOCATION: Stingray Point area from mouth of Broad Creek to mouth of
small cove south of terminus of Route 33.
Erosion Transects 68-83.

LENGTH: 9,300 feet.

EROSION HISTORY: Erosion rates from 1851 to 1942 were great, ranging
in averages from 3 to nearly 12 feet per year. More recently,
1960 to 1978, the shoreline has in large part been stabilized,
hence the shoreline may demonstrate some accretion as well as
diminished erosion rates.

COMMENTS: Low headland at mouth of Rappahannock River in Chesapeake
Bay. Approximately 6,250 feet (or two thirds) or the 9,300 feet
are already protected by riprap or bulkhead. Flooding is a
potential problem.

OPTION I

Action: Riprap protection of the yet unprotected areas,
smoothing shoreline irregularities where possible.
Estimated Cost:@. 3,050 feet at $65 per foot, total cost $198,250
or $4,956 per year for 40 year life.
Benefit: Significant lessening of erosion of unprotected areas.
A lessening of "flanking" failures of existing structures.
Problems: Probable loss of beaches. Flooding remains a poten-
tial problem. Probable need to use some nearshore state
bottoms for smoothing.

OPTION 2

Action: Reconstruct major riprap to a common line and design.
Estimated Cost: $120 per foot, 50 year life, $1,116,000 total
cost or $2.40 per foot per year.
Benefit: Shoreline is stabilized for 50+ years by a uniform
method. Threat of tidal flooding is slightly reduced.
Problems: Probable loss of beach. Need for utilization of
some state bottoms. Very large one time expense.

IN BOTH CASES

A 300 foot jetty-terminal groin at the end of White Cove. If
$120 per foot, $360,000 with a 40-year life.

IF EROSION RATES WERE GREATER

Both options would remain, however construction costs would
increase by 50% to 75%.

119

TABLE 4

Historical Erosion Rates
(Feet Per Year)

Middlesex County Pilot Study

Transect 1851-1942 1907-1942 1960-1978

1 - 1.5 ND ND
2 - 0.6 ND ND
3 - 0.7 ND ND
4 1.6 ND ND
5 1.8 ND ND

6 2.0 ND ND
7 1.8 ND ND
8 0 ND ND
9 3.1 ND - 3.9
10 1.1 ND + 3.3

11 1.1 ND 0
12 1.3 ND 0.6
13 0.9 ND 0
14 1.1 ND + 1.1
15 0 ND 0

16 + 1.1 ND - 1.1
17 0 ND - 3.3
18 - 0.4 ND - 2.8
19 - 1.3 ND - 4.4
20 - 0.7 ND - 1.1

21 - 0.4 + 0.9 - 1.7
22 0 - 1.9 - 2.8
23 0 - 2.4 - 2.8
24 - 0.4 - 0.9 - 1.7
25 - 0.6 - 0.9

120

Historical Erosion Rates Table 4 (cont)

Transect 1851-1942 1907-1942 1960-1918

26 - 0.7 + 0.9 - 1.7
27 - 0.6 - 1.9 - 0.6
28 - 0.4 0 0
0 - 2.4
29 0
30 - 0.4 0 - 1.1

31 - 0.7 - 1.4 - 1.1
32 - 1.1 - 0.9 - 2.2
33 0 0 + 0.6
34 - 0.9 0 + 1.7
35 - 1.3 - 0.9 0

36 - 1.6 - 2.4 + 0.6
37 + 0.4 - 1.4 - 0.6
38 + 2.6 + 4.8 0
39 + 5.1 + 0.9 0
40 + 3.1 + 1.9 0

41 + 2.2 + 3.8 0
42 + 0.6 + 1.4 + 0.6
43 - 0.7 - 1.9 - 1.1
44 -2.0 - 3.3 0
45 - 1.5 - 3.3 - 1.1

46 - 1.5 - 3.8 - 1.7
47 - 2.4 - 4.8 - 0.6
48 - 2.2 - 1.9 + 1.1
49 1.5 - 3.8 0
50 - 1.3 - 1.4 0

51 - 1.6 - 4.8 - 2.2
52 0 - 7.1 - 5.0
53 - 1.1 - 3.8 ND
54 - 1.5 - 4.8 ND
55 - 3.1 - 4.8 0

121

Historical Erosion Rates Table 4 (cont)

Transect 1851-1942 1907-1942 1960-1978

56 - 3.1 - 3.3 - 1.1
57 - 2.4 - 3.8 - 2.2
58 - 2.7 - 3.8 - 1.1
59 - 2.2 - 3.8 - 3.3
60 - 1.8 - 3.8 - 2.2

61 - 6.6 - 8.1 0
62 - 6.2 - 6.2 0
63 - 6.6 - 6.7 + 0.6
64 + 1.5 - 2.4 + 5.6
65 1.1 + 2.9 0

66 1.6 0 - 1.1
67 ND ND ND
68 ND +10.5 + 3.3
69 ND + 6.3 +11.7
70 ND - 4.3 + 0.6

71 5.5 - 9.9 + 1.1
72 4.6 - 3.3 0
73 5.1 - 3.3 0
74 5.1 - 6.7 - 0.6
75 5.7 - 8.6 - 1.1

76 7.3 - 9.5 - 2.8
77 -11.7 -13.8 + 0.6
78 -11.4 -10.5 0
79 - 5.7 - 7.1 + 2.2
80 - 5.5 - 4.8 - 1.1

81 - 4.6 - 2.4 0
82 - 3.3 - 2.4 0
83 - 3.3 - 7.1 0
84 - o.4 - 2.9 + 1.1
85 - 1.6 - 3.5 0

122

Historical Erosion Rates Table 4 (concluded)

Transect 1851-1942 1907-1942 1960-1978

86 - 2.4 - 4.3 ND
87 - 1.4 - 2.4 + 2.2
88 + 0.7 + 3.3 - 1.7
89 + 0.6 0 - 0.6
90 + 2.7 1.9 + 1.7

91 + 0.4 + 1.9 - 2.8
92 + 3.7 + 4.8 - 2.2
93 + 4.0 + 9.5 - 1.1
94 + 2.4 4.8 ND

123

TABLE 5

Shoreline Structures
Middlesex County Pilot Study

Area Number 1960 1978 Structures Common
(By Transects) Structures Structures To Both Years

7- 8
8- 9 - 3 groins -
9-10 - I groin -
10-11 - I groin -
11-12 - 1 groin -
12-13 - 3 groins -
13-14 - 2 groins, 50% -
bulkhead, 1 pier,
I boat ramp
14-15 - I boat ramp -
15-16 -
16-17 -
17-18 - 15% bulkhead
18-19 -
19-20 - 5 groins
20-21 - 3 Groins
21-22 -
22-23 -
23-24 -
24-25 - I jetty -
25-26 - 1 jetty -
26-27 - 5 groins, 25% -
bulkhead
27-28 - 10 groins, 100% -
bulkhead
28-29 - 9 groins, 100% -
bulkhead
29-30 - 9 groins, 5% -
bulkhead
30-31 - 6 groins, 40% -
bulkhead
31-32 - 5 groins, 100% -
bulkhead
32-33 - 2 groins -
33-34 - 4 groins, 10% -
bulkhead
34-35 - 4 groins, 15% -
bulkhead, 35%
riprap, 1 pier

124

Table 5 (cont)

Area Number 1960 1978 Structures Common
(By Transects) Structures Structures To Both Years

35-36 50% bulkhead,
2 piers
36-37
37-38
38-39
39-40 1boat ramp
40-41 1pier
41-42 1 pier 2piers I pier
42-43 -
43-44 - 3groins
44-45 - 4groins -
45-46 - 5groins -
46-47 - 8groins -
47-48 - 4groins -
48-49 - 2groins, -
2jetties
49-50 - 1groin, 75% -
bulkhead
50-51 - 10% bulkhead -
51-52 -
52-53 - 2 groins, 1/2 -
jetty
53-54 - 1/2 jetty -
54-55 - 50% bulkhead -
55-56 - 5 groins, 100% -
bulkhead
56-57 - 4 groins, 60% -
bulkhead, 10%
failed bulkhead
57-58 - 4 groins, 60% -
bulkhead
58-59 - I groin, 50% -
bulkhead
59-60 - 1 groin -
60-61 1 groin 1 groin, 20% -
bulkhead
61-62 2 groins 3 groins, 85% -
bulkhead, 5% failed
bulkhead
62-63 10% bulk- 15% bulkheadl
head, 1 85% riprap
jetty
63-64
64-65 1 groin 30% bulkhead

125

Table 5 (cont)

Area Number 1960 1978 Structures Common
(By Transects) Structures Structures To Both Years

65-66 5 groins, 40%
bulkhead
66-67
67-68 1 groin
68-69 1 groin 1 pier, 2 groins,
75% bulkhead
69-70 5 groins 6 groins(rip- 3 groins
rap), 100% bulk-
head, I pier
70-71 6 groins 7 groins, 100%
bulkhead
71-72 3 groins 2 groins, 20% 1 groin
bulkhead
72-73 4 groins 4 groins, 5% 1 groin
bulkhead, 75%
riprap, 2 piers
73-74 2 groins 1 pier, 6 1 groin
groins, 70%
bulkhead, 30%
riprap
74-75 1 groin 2 piers, I groin, -
55% riprap, 30%
failed bulkhead
75-76 95% riprap -
76-77 35% riprap 100% riprap -
77-78 3 groins 2 groins, 60% -
riprap, 20%
bulkhead, I pier
78-79 70% riprap -
79-80 4 groins 6 groins, 15% 4 groins
riprap, 25%
bulkhead
80-81 25% riprap 4 groins, 10% 25% riprap
bulkhead, 45%
riprap
81-82 2 groins 4 groins, 10% 1 groin
bulkhead, 10%
riprap
82-83 5 groins 5 groins, 30%
bulkhead
83-84 3 groins, 6 groins, 100% 3 groins, 20%
20% bulkhead bulkhead, 2 bulkhead
piers
84-85 1 jetty, 2 5 groins, 10% 20% bulkhead
piers, 20% riprap, 40%
bulkhead bulkhead-

126

Table 5 (concluded)

Area Number 1960 1978 Structures Common
(By Transects) Structures Structures To Both Years

85-86 1 pier, 55%
riprap
86-87 2 piers, 15% 100% riprap, 15% riprap
riprap 2 piers
87-88 1 pier, 1 1 pier, 1 40% riprap,
groin, 40% breakwater I pier
riprap 65% riprap
88-89 1 pier 5 groins, 2
piers, 40%
riprap
89-90 1 groin 4 piers, 4 1 groin
groins
90-91 - 4 groins, I
pier
91-92 -
92-93 -
93-94 - I groin

127

TABLE 6

Artificially Stabilized Areas (Feet)

Stingray Point Area
Middlesex County Pilot Study

Area Number 1978 Shoreline Artificially Stabilized Unprotected
(By Transect) (Feet) Shoreline (Feet) Shoreline

68-69 569.6 474.0 95.6

69-70 603.5 603.5 0

70-71 687.8 687.8 0

71-72 606.3 211.2 395.1

72-73 540.7 394.0 146.7

73-74 525.6 231.4 294.2

74-75 627.5 345.4 282.2

75-76 679.5 646.4 33.1

76-77 587.2 587.2 0

77-78 581.4 383.3 198.1

78-79 592.0 416.1 175.9

79-80 554.9 226.8 328.1

80-81 589.2 384.8 204.4

81-82 529.4 120.7 408.7

82-83 1089.7 539.6 550.1

Total 9364.3 Feet 6252.0 Feet 3112.3 Feet

128

6.2 Applicatio of the Economic Decision Framework

Section 5.1.4 of this report provided a discussion of the

objectives of-the economic assessment methodology and of the various

factors involved in that assessment. Also, it provided an explanation

of the relationships among the economic assessment, technical

assessment, and institutional mechanisms for various management

strategies. Sources of data as well as the procedures which were used

to calculate values are more fully explained in Appendix A. The

purpose of this section was to apply the economic assessment

methodology to the three separate "reaches" in a pilot study area in

Middlesex County. The first step was to develop the cost and benefit'

values for the Summary Budget (as explained in Appendix A) for each

reach. Reach number 1 (section 6.2.1) is used as an example to

develop the procedure. Results only are presented for the second

(section 6.2.2) and third (section 6.2.3) reaches.

6.2.1 Reach Number 1. The reach is that shoreline area which

extends from the entrance to Mill Creek to the entrance to Bush Park

Creek, a distance of 12,000 feet or 2.27 miles. The area is

characterized by open space and agricultural areas with a few

residential homes. The reach consists of seven individual segments

and includes transects 1-25 (Figure 1, section 6.1.1).

Reach I contains 23 shorefront parcels of property with 21 being

privately owned and two in public ownership. The evaluation

procedures as described in Appendix section A.1.2 through section

A.1.8 were used to evaluate the impact values for structures,

129

property, taxes and productive use for the two depth frontage areas

and four erosion rate depth areas. Individual parcel values were

summarized for the reach totals and presented in a working table which

is then used to develop values for the Summary Budget as shown in

section 6.2.1.7.

Working Table for Reach 1.

Property Use
Other Structures Loss of Taxes Productivity
Dwelling Land Water Property Total Bldg. Site Annuall Annuall
Area $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

100, 116,500 8,750 11,950 1,822 139,022 -0- 7.84 26.81
(98.00) (335.13)

200' 209,150 13,650 11,950 3,644 238,394 -0- 15.67 53.62
(195.88) (760.25)

10 yr. 27,825 -0- -0- 224 NA -0- 1.00 2.70
(6.71) (18.12)

15 yr. 27,825 -0- -0- 337 NA -0- 1.44 4.07
(12.33) (34.84)

30 yr. 58,890 1,000 5,000 673 NA -0- 2.89 8.14
(32.54) (91.66)

67 yr. 79,620 5,200 9,700 1,503 NA -0- 6.46 18.17
(80.36) (226.03)

lAssume constant annual stream of benefits. Present worth (in parenthesis) was
calculated at 8 percent discount rate:

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr. Inf.
6.71 8.56 11.26 12.44 12.50

6.2.1.1 Potential Shoreland Erosion Loss. The first

component of the Summary Budget in section 6.2.1.7 is a display of the

maximum cost due to unabated erosion losses for each erosion rate year

130

for each category. Values for this display were extracted from the

working table in section 6.2.1. and calculated according to procedures

described in Appendix.A.4.1. The following values represent the

maximum benefit which would accrue to each category if erosion was

completely abated as a result of implementation of controls.

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr.

Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public

dwelling 27,825 0 27)825 0 580890 0 79,620 0

land structures 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 5,200 0

water structures 0 0 0 0 5,000 0 9,700 0

loss of bldg. site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

loss of taxes (property) NA 7 NA 12 NA 33 NA 80

loss of prod. use 18 0 35 0 92 0 226 0

Total 27,843 7 27,860 12 64,982 j-3 94,746 80

These total values were transferred to the Summary Budget. This reach

did not have any identified shoreland benefits accruing to the public

sector except loss of taxes on property. However, some areas may have

substantial other public benefits.

6.2.1.2 Assessment of Erosion Control Options. Four

control options as discussed in section 6.1.3 were proposed for Reach

Option 1: Consists of a program of limited action to moderate but not

halt erosion. Action would result in a minimum of negative downdrift

consequences. The a pproach includes minimal dredging, 2,600 feet of

bluff crest grade and drain work, and 41 groins with "spoilers".

131

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $125,550.00

Cost per foot 10.50

Time period of effectiveness - 15 years

Expected effectiveness in control - 20 percent

(Percent expected effectiveness in control is an attempt to combine

and quantify the expected life of the structure and its effect in

reducing erosion. It is at best an approximation.)

Expected results - Erosion is allowed to continue but is diminished.

Structures serve to maximize the benefits of erosion. In Segment 1,

sand nourishment worth $2,250 per year is supplied to an eroding area.

(Present worth of $2,250 annually for 15 years at 8 percent discount

is $2,250 X 8.56 - $19,260). In Segment 7, longshore drift material

is trapped and builds the beach. Also, there is a decrease in the

need for dredging Hill Creek and an improvement in the boat shelter

area in Mill Creek.

Option II: A more active program of shoreline stabilization with

greater downdrift problems and costs. This approach includes all the

work in option I plus additional groins in one segment and shoreline

hardening in two other segments.

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $462,650.00

Cost per foot $35.70

Time period of effectiveness - 25 years

Expected effectiveness in control - 50 percent

132

Expected results -Erosion of-bluffs is reduced. Some portions of the

shoreline are stabilized for approximately 50 years. Some beach areas

are lost. Downdrift erosion may accelerate and the life span of some

groins may shorten. Sand nourishment worth $2,250 per year or $24,008

for 25 years is still provided.

Option IIIA: The preferred action if erosion were over 3 feet per

year. Strategy would differ from options I and II. Strategy would

include a groin field in one segment, a terminal groin or jetty in

another segment and dredging in a third.

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $101,000.00

Cost per foot $8.40

Time period of effectiveness - 10 years

Expected effectiveness in control - 15 percent

Expected results: Erosion is only minimally diminished. The option

still provides sand nourishment worth $2,250 per year or $15,098 for

15 years.

Option IIIB: This is an alternative action if erosion were over 3

feet per year. It would involve major protection efforts. In

addition to actions in Option IIIA, it includes a revetment (most

likely riprap) in several segments and a stone terminal groin.

Co�'t of structural controls:

Total current dollars $1,372,000.00

Cost per foot $115.50

Time period of effectiveness - 40 years

Expected effectiveness in control - 95 percent

133

@Expected results: Erosion is halted but loss of some beach is

expected because of the loss of sediment source.

Technical Assistance: This category includes the expense of technical

assistance for shoreline evaluation, design of appropriate control

structures, and on-going maintenance and field checks. A value was

calculated as shown in Appendix A.2 for the reach and is the same

regardless of which option is selected.

Technical assistance:

Direct personnel cost

4 man-days per mile x 2.27 miles x $40 day $ 363.20

Indirect personnel cost

$363.20 (direct) x .70 (indirect rate) 254.24

Supplies

$20 per mile x 2.27 miles 45.40

scientific Analysis:

Direct personnel cost

4 man-days per mile x 2.27 miles x $75 day 681.00

Indirect pesonnel cost

$681.00 (direct) x .70 (indirect rate) 476.70

General oversight:

1 man-day per mile x 2.27 miles x $40 day 90.80

$1,911.34

The values for each option and the total value for technical

assistance are transferred to the Summary Budget in section 6.2.1.7.

134

6.2.1.3 Potential Impact From Restriction on Ownership.

The impact.on ownership restriction may result from either

restrictions such as easements and acquisition or from regulatory

actions such as zoning, permitting, and setbacks. Values were

,determined by the procedure as explained in Appendix A.1.

Maximum cost of restriction on the use of resources was based on

the value of productive use of the land, value of impacted property,

and loss of building site within the 100' and 200' areas.

100, 200'

Private Public Private Public

productive use 335 0 760 0

value of property 1,722 100 3,444 200

loss of bldg. site 0 0 0 0

100 4,204 200
Total 057

The total values were transferred to the Summary Budget in section

6.2.1.7.

6.2.1.4"Transaction and Administration. One value per

reach for each of the five categories under transaction and

administration were calculated based on the procedure as described in

Appendix A.3.

Ownership category:

Reach.1 contains 23 parcels of property which

could be subject to a taking action at a cost of

$,11:9500 parcel.

23 parcels x $1,500 parcel $34,000 maximum cost

of,an ownership program

135

Regulatory category:

Cost as estimated for a reach in Middlesex County.

$332.74 cost per reach

Financial or incentive category:

Cost as estimated for 23 parcels in Reach 1 in

Middlesex County.

23 parcels x $27.02 parcel = $621.46

Data collection/planning/research:

Actual cost data for the example reaches in

Middlesex County was $18.04 per parcel.

23 parcels x $18.04 parcel = $414.92

Education/information:

Will probably be part of an On7gOing program.

A maximum expenditure of $1,000 should be established

for this category. The value per reach for each

category was transferred to the Summary Budget in

section 6.2.1.7.

6.2.1.5 Potential Cost of Public Acquisition. The maximum

cost of public acquisition is the value of all property and

improvements in the 100 foot and 200 foot impact areas. Values were

determined as explained in Appendix A.4.3. Values for public

ownership were included in the total because transfer of

publicly-owned property may occur between two public entities.

Acquisition cost must be used conjunctively with other actions such as

relocation potential and other ownership restriction activities.

136

100, 200'

dwelling 1165,500 209,150

land structures 8,750 13,650

water structures 11,950 11,950

property 1,822 3,644

Total 139,022 238,394

Acquisition costs can be allocated among federal, state, and

local concerns in any manner desired. One proposal is for a 50

federal/50 non-federal program. These options are discussed in

section 6..2.4. The total values were transferred to the Summary

Budget in section 6.2.1.7.

6.2.1.6 Potential,Cost of Relocation of Dwellings.

Relocation cost for moving all dwellings out of the 100 foot and 200

foot impact area is provided as an alternative to complete public

acquisition. Relocation costs were calculated on the basis of the

procedure discussed in Appendix A.4.3 for each dwelling presently

located in the area and a total summed for the reach. Estimates for

relocation cost for:each dwelling were not permitted to exceed the

assessed value of the dwelling.

100, 200'

relocation cost 93,100 170,150

These values must be used in comparison with other alternatives.

These costs can also be allocated on a cost sharing basis. One

proposal is an 80 federal/20 non-federal share on grant programs and a

137

5 percent rate on loan programs. These options will be discussed in

section 6.2.4. These values were transferred to the Summary Budget in

section 6.2.1.7.

6.2.1.7 Summary Budget of Costs and Benefits for Reach 1.

Costs Benefits
Total Private Public Total Private Public

I. Potential Shoreland
Erosion Loss Prevention

10-yr erosion rate 27,850 27,843 7 -
15-yr erosion rate 27,872 27,860 12 -
30-yr erosion rate 60,015 64,982 33 -
67-yr erosion rate 94,826 94,764 30 -

II. Assessment of Erosion
Control Optionsi

Effectiveness

option Years Percent
1 15 20 125,550 24,8342 5,572 2
11 25 50 462,650 56,5163 32,491 17
111 10 15 101,000 19,2764 4,176 2
IV 40 95 1,372,000 NA NA NA
Technical Assistance 1,911

Potential Impact from
Restriction on Ownership

100 foot depth 2,157 2,057 100
200 foot depth 4,404 4,204 200

Transaction and
Administration

Ownership 34,150 - 34,150 - - -
Regulatory 333 - 333 - - -
Financial 621 - 621 - - -
Data/Research 415 - 415 - - -
Education 1,000 - 1,000 - - -

138

Costs Benefits
Total Private Public Total Private Public

III. Potential Cost of
Public Acquisition

100 foot depth 139,022 - 139,022
200 foot depth 2.38,394 - 238,394

Potential Cost for
Relocation of Dwellings

100 foot depth 93,100 - 93,100
200 foot depth 170,150 - 170,150

lAs many options as desirable may be included. The years indicate the
prolect time period of effectiveness of controls. The percentage indicates
effectiveness of structures for that option in controlling erosion.
21ncludes $19,260 in sand nourishment benefits.
31ncludes $24,008 in sand nourishment benefits.
41ncludes $15,097 in sand nourishment benefits.

139

Evaluation of Summary Budget for Reach 1. Part 1 of the budget

provides values for a maximum loss to shoreland resources if erosion

were to continue unabated. These costs could accrue to either private

or public parties. However, due to the nature of ownership in this

sample, only loss of taxes accrue to the public section. As a result

of erosion action, additional, unaccounted for, losses may accrue to

the shoreline and nearshore areas. It is important to note a

potential for additional costs to the State resulting from claims of

damages caused by the downdrift impacts of erosion preventing

structures. Article 1, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution

prevents "...any law whereby private property shall be taken or
damaged for public uses, without just compensation...."i

This constitutional provision has been held to be "self

executing", and all a landowner need show is damage caused by some

state action in order to recover money. The concept was applied in an

erosion context in Heldt v. Elizabeth River Tunnel Dist.2 and Morris

v. Elizabeth River Tunnel Dist.3

The difficulty of proof and the present uncertainty as to whether

the State or an individual can be held liable for downdrift impacts

from shoreline defense structures prevents the inclusion of the damage

concept, in quantitative form, in our accounting of costs associated

with shoreline erosion prevention. The potential of monetary outflows

resulting from such damage claims should be noted, however.
1 Va. Const. Art. 1, �11.

2 Heldt v. Tunnel Dist. 196 Va. 477, 84 S.E. 2d 511 (1954).
3 Morris v. Tunnel Dist. 203 Va. 196J. 123, S.E. 2d 398 (1962).

140

Those losses are not included in these values because measurement

of the losses and methodology to place a value on the losses do not

presently exist. Control measures may prevent all or some of these

losses and thus they become a benefit for evaluation of control

options. Additional benefits other than prevention of losses (such as

beach accretion) may accrue to private.or public entities as a result

of structural or non-structural control measures. Likewise,

methodology for inclusion.of these benefit values does not presently

exist. Thus, actual benefits for control measures could be

significantly higher. than those which were included in the summary

budget.

Part II provides the necessary data for cost and benefit

comparisons. It provides total costs for implementation of structures

for each option. These. costs are given only as a total because they

could be allocated to either thelprivate or public sector. Technical

assistance remains constant for the reach. Benefits for each option

were calculated from the potential shoreland erosion loss prevention

values based on percentage effectiveness of structures for that option

in controlling erosion. For example, Option I was projected to be 20

percent, effective-in controlling erosion. Therefore, total benefits

are: $27,872 x ..20 $5,574 + $19,260 sand nourishment for a total of

$24,834s

Incomparing' the direct costs and benefits of each option for

this reach,@ none of the options should be implemented. However, other

141

benefits (perceived and non-quantifiable benefits) may dictate

selection of an option. If one of these options is selected for

implementation only $5,569 under Option 1, $32,491 under Option II and

$1,392 under Option III should be allocated to private owner costs.

Costs were allocated in this manner to equal identified private sector

benefits. This does not mean that these are the only benefits which

will accrue to the private sector, they are the only ones identified

by the analysis and subject to allocation to the private sector.

The monetary costs of restriction on ownership in this open and

undeveloped area was very small for both the 100' and 200' area with

$2,157 and $4,404 respectively. However, the cost of an ownership

type program with a taking action would be an additional $34,150, a

significantly higher cost. For this reach other transaction and

administration costs were small.

These costs and benefits are not.simply additive; combinations of

costs and benefits must be considered for each proposed management

strategy.

Part III provides cost values which are not necessary for the

benefit and cost evaluation but are necessary for a complete

evaluation of available alternatives. Acquisition of property and

improvements in the 100' or 2001 impact areas may be a desirable

management strategy or may be a requirement under the taking issue.

The maximum cost of acquisition is $139,022 in the 100' area and

$238,394 in the 200' area. If a large number of parcels in the reach

142

required acquisition as@a part of ownership restriction or regulatory

action, then the cost of the non-structural measures could easily be

higher than some of the structural options.

A second important factor could be cost.of relocation of

dwellings. Relocation could decrease cost of acquisition and make an

infeasible man t strat
Agemen egy feasible, Relocation cost could

decrease acquisition cost in the 100' area by $23,400 ($116,500 value

of dwellings in sect
ion 6.2.1.5; minus the $93,100 for relocation of

dwellings). That difference is $39,000 (209,150 - 170,150) in the

200'.area. Savings from relocation a.re relatively small for this area

as it is characterized by smaller homes where relocation costs are

almost as large as the value of the houses. With larger, more

expensive homes, relocation costs could be a significant factor in

selection of management strategies.

Conclusion on Reach I

Benefits of control in this reach were extremely small compared to

cost of structural controls. The non-identified benefits would have

to be at least three times as great as these identified benefits to

make any option economically feasible. Cost of ownership restriction

was extremely small unless acquisition was required. For this open

and undeveloped area some form of ownership restriction in,either a

1.00' or 200' area appears to be the only viable alternative.

143

6.2.2 Reach Number 2. The reach is that shoreline area which

extends from Bush Park Creek to the Beach Area near State Route 631, a

disance of 9,000 feet or 1.70 miles. The area is characterized by two

sections of moderate density residential development and some high

bluff areas. The reach consists of three individual segments and

includes transects 25-44 (Figure 1, Section 6.1.1). Reach 2 contains

74 shorefront parcels of property with all 74 being privately owned.

Working Table for Reach 2.

Property Use
Other Structures Loss of Taxes Productivity
Dwelling Land Water Property Total Bldg. Site Annuall Annuall
Area $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

100, 632,900 32,400 42,750 256,238 964,288 0 1,101.85 2.58
(13,773.13) (32.25)

200 856$350 71,800 42,750 512,475 1,483p375 0 2,203.71 5.16
(27,546.38) (64.50)

10 yr. 165,305 2,700 1,260 9$570 NA 0 41.28 0
(276.99)

15 yr. 170,525 7,300 3,600 14,200 NA 0 61.13 0
(523.27)

30 yr. 217,285 7.%750 5$600 28,404 NA 0 122.25 0
(1,376.54)

67 yr. 290,475 11,250 11,900 63,427 NA 0 272.74 0
(3,392.89)

lAssume constant annual stream of benefits. Present worth (in parenthesis) was
calculated at 8 percent discount rate:

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr. Inf.
6.71 8.56 11.26 12.44 12.50

144

6.2.2.1 Potential Shoreland Erosion Loss

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr.

Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private

dwellings 165,305 0 170,525 0 217,285 0 290,475 0

land structures 2,700 0 7,300 0 7,750 0 11,250 0

water structures 1,260 Q 3,600 0 5M0 0 11,900
loss of bldg. site b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

loss of taxes (property? NA 276 NA 523 NA 1,377 NA 3,393

loss of prod. use 0 0 01 0 .0 0 0 0

Total. 169,265 M T81,425 5.23 230,635 1,377 31.3,625 3,393

6.2.2,2 Assessment of Erosion Control Options.

Option 1: Involves a@moderate approach which would utilize existing

structurea. The sugg'6stions include low profile groins and bluff area

grading and drainage works for one segment and bluff grading and

drainage plus bulkheading in another segment.

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $37,700.00

Cost per foot $4.19

Time period of effectiveness 15 years

Expected effectiveness in control 50 percent

Expected results: Erosion is reduced but the sediment source is

maintained.

Option II: Results in general shoreline stabilization. In addition

to actions in Option I, revetments (probably riprap) in two segments

145

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $395,000.00

Cost per foot $43.89

Time period of effectiveness - 40 years

Expected effectiveness in control - 95 percent

Expected results: Shoreline is stabilized. Beach area is lost

because the source of sediment is lost.

Option III: The proposed action if erosion were double current rates.

The approach would provide major protection of the shoreline. In

addition to action as in Option II, additional revetment work in two

segments and a substantial groin field in the third segment are

needed.

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $749,500.00

Cost per foot $83.28

Time period of effectiveness - 40 years

Expected effectivenss in control - 95 percent

Expected results: The shoreline is stabilized but all erosion is not

diminished. The beach is lost as the sediment source is eliminated.

Technical Assistance:

Direct personnel cost

40 man-days per mile x 1.70 miles x $40 day $ 272.00

Indirect personnel cost

$272.00 (direct) x .70 (indirect rate) 190.40

Supplies

$20 per mile x 1.70 miles 34.00

146

Scientific analysis:

Direct personnel costs

4 man-days per mile.x 1.70 miles X $75 day 510.00

Indirect personnel cost

$510.00 (direct) x .70 (indirect rate) 357.00

General oversight:

1 qman-day per mile x 1.70 miles x $40 day. 68.00

TOTAL $1,431.40

6.2.2.3 Potential Impact from Restriction on Ownership

200'

Private Public Private Public

productive use 32 0 65 0

value of property 256,238 0 512,475 0

loss of bldg, site 0 0 0 0
Total 256,238 0 512,540 0

6.2.2.4 Transaction and Administration;

Ownership category:

Reach 2 contained 74 parcels of property which

could be subject to a taking action at a cost of $1,500

per parcel

74 parcels x $1,500 parcel = $111,000

maximum cost of ownership program

Regulatory category:

$332.74 per reach

147

Financial or incentive category:

74 parcels x $27.02 parcel = $1,999.48

Data collection/planning/research:

74 parcels x $18.04 parcel = $1,334.96

Education/information:

A maximum expenditure of $1,000 is suggested.

6.2.2.5 Potential Cost of Public Acquisition

100' 200'

dwelling 632,900 856,350

land structures 32,400 71,800

water structures 42,750 42,750

property 256,238 512,475

Total 964,288 1,483,375

6.2.2.6 Potential Cost for Relocation of Dwellings

100, 200'

relocation cost 540,200 731,550

6.2.2.7 Summary Budget of Costs and Benefits for Reach I

Costs Benefits
Total Private public Total Private Public

I. Potential Shoreland
Erosion Loss Prevention

10-yr erosion rate 169,541 169,265 276 - - -
15-yr erosion rate 181,948 181,425 523 - - -
30-yr erosion rate 232,012 230,635 1,377 - - -
67-yr erosion rate 317,018 313,625 3,393 - - -

148

Costs Benefits
Total Private Public Total Private Public

II. Assessment of Erosion
Control Options

Effectiveness

Option Years Percent

1 15 50 37,700 90,974 900713 261
11 40 �5 395,OQO 220,411 219,103 1,308
111 40 95 749,500 220,411 219,103 1,308
Technical Assistance 1,431 - - -

Potential Impact from
Restriction on Ownership

100 foot depth 256,270 256,270 0
200 foot depth 512,540 512.540 0

Transaction and
Administration

Ownership 111,000 111,000
'Regulatory 333. 333
Financial 1,999 11@99@ - - -
Data/Research 1,335 1,355
Education 1,000 1,000

III.'Potential Cost of
Public Acquisition

100 foot depth 964,288 964,288
200 foot depth 1,483,375 1,483,375

Potential Cost for
.Relocation of Dwellings

100 foot depth 540,200 540,200
200 foot depth 731,550 731,550

'As many options as desirable may be included. The years indicate the projected
time period of effectiveness of controls. The percentage indicates
effectiveness of.structures for that option in controlling erosion.

149

Evaluation of Summary Budget for Reach 2. In Part 11, benefits are

significantly greater than cost for Option I but significantly lower

for Options II and III. Even with added cost of technical assistance

and administrative and transaction components Option I appears

feasible and total costs should be borne by private owners.

Unquantified benefits would have to be extremely large to justify the

other two options.

Cost of restriction on ownership is high for this area. The

$256,270 + $111,000 administrative and transaction costs give a total

of $367,270. Any added cost of acquisition (minus difference in

relocation) due to the taking issue would push this cost past that for

structural controls in Option II and possibly Option III. The

ownership restriction may have little impact on mitigation of erosion

whereas structural Options 11 and III eliminate 95 percent of the

erosion.

Conclusion on Reach 2

Option I is economically feasible. Options II and III appear to be

better alternatives than non-structural ownership restrictions in this

developing area. Approximately half of the cost on Option II should

be borne by the public. A significantly larger amount of Option III

cost should be borne by the public.

150

6.2.3 Reach Number 3. The reach is that shoreline in the

Stingray Point area from the mouth of Broad Creek to the mouth of the

small cove south of terminus of State Route 33, a distance of 9,300

feet or 1.76 miles. The area is characterized as a continuous segment

of high density single-family residential units with many of those

being summer or vacation homes and includes transects 68-83 (Figure 1,

Section 6.1.15. Reach 3 contains 76 shorefront parcels of pro erty

with all 76 being privately owned. Approximately 6,250 feet of reach

are already protected by riprap or bulkhead.

Working Table for Reach 3

Property Use
Other Structures Loss of Taxes Productivity
Dwelling Land Water Property Total Bldg. Site Annuall Annua'll----
Area $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

100, 818,1500 43,700 86,100 450,852 1,399,152 19,600 1,938.-66 0.
(24,233)

200' 818,500 43,700 86,100 .901,704 1,850,004 19,600 3,877.33 0
(48,467)

10 yr. 386,045 2,056 28)400 2 6,350 NA 12,300 113.31 0
(760)

15 yr. 407,435 29,400 39,518 NA 12,300 0
@1,455)

30 yr. 431,900 5,000 30,400 79,036 NA 12,300 0
(3,827)

67 yr. 431,900 5,000 30,400 176,512 NA 12,300 759.00 0
(9,442)

'Assume constant annual.stream of benefits. Present,worth (in parenthesis) was
calculated at 8 percent discount rate:

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr. Inf.
6.71 8.56 11.26 12.44 12.50

6.2.3.1. Potential Shoreland Erosion Loss.

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr.

Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public

dwelling 386,045 0 4071,435 0 431,900 0 431,900 0

land structures 21,050 0 4,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0

water structures 28,400 0 29,400 0 30,400 0 30,400 0

loss of bldg. site 12,300 0 12,300 0 12,300 0 12,300 0
loss of taxes (property) NA 760 NA 1,455 NA 3,827 NA 9,422
loss of prod. use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

428,795 760 453,135 1,455 479,600 3,827 479,600 9,442

6.2.3.2. Assessment of Erosion Control Options for Reach 3.

Option I: Approach consists of riprap protection of unprotected areas

and smoothing shoreline irregularities where possible and a jetty or

terminal groin.

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $558,250.00

Cost per foot $60.28

Time period of effectiveness - 40 years

Expected effectiveness in control - 95 percent

Expected results: Significant lessening of erosion of unprotected

areas. A lessening of flanking failure of existing structures.

Probable loss of some beaches.

Option II.: Approach is to reconstruct major riprap to a common line

and design plus the terminal groin.

152

Cost of structural controls:

Total current dollars $1,476,000.00

Cost per foot $158.71

Time period of effectiveness 50 years

Expected effectiveness in control 95 percent

Expected results: Shore stabilized for 50 years. Probable loss Of

some beach.

Technical Assistance

Technical assistance:

Direct personnel cost

4 man-days'x 1.76 miles x $40/day $ 281.60

Indirect personnel cost

$281.60 (direct) x .70 (indirect rate) 197.12

Supplies

$20 x 1.76 miles 3.5.20

Scientific Analysis*

Direct personnel cost

4 man-days x 1.76 miles x $75/day 528.00

Indirect personnel cost

$528.00 (direct) x .70 (indirect rate) 369.60

General oversight;

I man-day x 1.76 miles x $40/day 70.40

Total. $1,481.92

153

6.2.3.3 Potential Impact from Restriction on Ownership.

100, 2001

Private Public Private Public

productive use 0 0 0 0

value of property 450,852 0 901,704 0

loss of bldg. site 19,600 0 19,600 0

Total 470,452 0 9213,304 0

6.2.3.4 Transaction and Administration.

Ownership category:

Reach 3 contains 76 parcels of property which

could be subject to a taking action at a cost of

$1,500 per parcel.

76 parcels x $1,500 parcel = $114,000 maximum

cost of ownership

Regulatory category:

$332.74 cost per reach

Financial or incentive category:

76 parcels x $27.02 parcel = $2,054

Data collection/planning/research:

76 parcels x $18.04 parcel = $1,371.04

Education/information:

A maximum expenditure of $1,000 is suggested.

154

6.2.3.5 Potential Cost of Public Acquisition.

100, 200'

dwelling 818,500 818,500.

land structures 43,700 .43,700

water structures 86,i.OQ 86,100

property 450,852 901,704

Total 1,399,152 1,850,004

6.2.3.6 Potential Cost for Relocation of Dwellings. -

100, 200',

relocation cost 634$800 6341)800

6.2.3.7. Summary Budget of Costs and Benefits for Reach 3.

Costs Benefit
Total Private Public Total Private' Public

I. Potential Shoreland
Erosion Loss Prevention

10-yr. erosion rate 429)555 428,795 760 -
15-yr. erosion rate 454,590 453,135 1,455 -
30-yr. erosion rate 483,427 479,600 3$827 -
67-yr. erosion rate 489$042 479$600 9,442 -

II. Assessment of Erosion
Control Opti nsi

Effectiveness

Option Years Percent

1 40 95 558,250 .459,256 455,620 3,636
TI 50 95 1,476,000 464,590 455,620 8,970
Technical Assistance 1)482 -
lAs many options as desirable may be included. The years indicate the projected
time period of effectiveness of controls. The percentage indicates effectiveness
of structures for that option in controlling erosion. Potential Impact from

@55

Costs ene f it
Total Private Public Total Private Public

Potential Impact from
Restriction on Ownership

100 foot depth 470,452 470,452 0
200 foot depth 921,304 921,304 0

Transaction and
Administration

Ownership 114,000 - 114,000 - - -
Regulatory 333 - 333 - - -
Financial 2,054 - 2,054 - - -
Data/Research 1,371 - 1,371 - - -
Education 1,000 - 1,000 - - -

III. Potential Cost of
Public Acquisition

100 foot depth 1,399,152 - 1,399,152 - - -
200 foot depth 1,850,004 - 1,850,004 - - -

Potential Cost for
Relocation of Dwellings

100 foot depth 634,800 - 634,800 - - -
200 foot depth 634,800 - 634,800 - - -

Evaluation of Summary Budget for Reach 3

As shown in Part I potential benefits from controlling erosion were

relatively high but fairly constant for each erosion rate area in this

developed area. The identified benefits for Option I were almost as

large as the costs. Only a small number of unidentified benefits

would make this option feasible. Almost all of the benefits are

private and therefore, most of the cost should be borne by the private

sector. Option II appears to be uneconomical. If it were

implemented, a very large part of the cost would fall on the public

sector.

156

Cost of ownership restrictions ($470,452 + $114,000.= $584,452)

plus any cost of acquisition would make this alternative extremely

expensive compared to Option I which controls 95 percent ofthe

erosion.

6.2.4. -Summary of Assessment Procedure. A complete economic

evaluation of proposed control measures is not provided by the

assessment procedure. Analysis of several important factors was not

within the scope of this study. Those constraints to the,analysis

were clearly stated throughout the text. Within those constraints',
Certain conclusions can be stated, The assessment procedure clearly.

identifies those structural control options for which costs are

greatly in excess of the expected benefits; such as Option II and IV.

in Reach 1, Option III in Reach-2, and Option II in Reach 3. Benefits

other than those identified would have to be extremely large to

justify the action. Several of the structural control options do have

identified benefits.nearly equal to or in excess of costs and would.

appear to be economically feasible. For instance, Option I and II in

Reach 2 and Option I in Re ach 3 are in this category.

The procedure also provides an indication of the relative

magnitude of cost for the non-structural measures such as setback

requirements. For instance, an ownership restriction without any

public acquisition-is relatively inexpensive in Reach 1, the open

space and undeveloped area. Of course, acquisition in response tothe

taking issue would add significantly to that cost but would not

157

constitute a prohibitive expenditure. Non-structural controls become

significantly more expensive and rival the magnitude of structural

measures in the developing area, Reach 2. of course, structural

measures provide a degree of control whereas setbacks may only

eliminate potential damages by restricting uses of that area*

Non-structural measures become very expensive for the developed areas.

A general conclusion is that non-structural controls are more

suitable for open space and undeveloped areas, and some form of

structural controls are more suitable for developed areas. Of course,

combinations of control measures may be appropriate for any of the

areas.

The division where possible of costs and benefits between the

private and public sectors provides a reasonable basis for

consideration of allocation of the burden of costs of the program

between these two sectors. The magnitude of the added cost of the

proposed programs and the expected willingness and ability of each

sector to pay for the programs is discussed in section 6.3 of this

report. Section 6.4 of the report contains an application of the

analysis to the federal flood insurance program.

Although the assessment procedure for this case study area was

limited to impacts on agricultural and residen tial type resource areas

which constitute most of Middlesex County and other similar coun ties

158

in the coastal area, the basic methodology could with slight

modification be easily applied to commercial, industrial, and more

urbanized areas.

6.3 Financial Factors and Successful'Implementatlon of a Control,

Proaram.

The analyp@p in selctions,,6.2,1.7, 6.2.2.7, and 6.2.3.7 provided a

rationale for distribution of erosion control costs between the

private and public sectors. Successful implementation of a propsed

program for any reach will depend on willingness of private proper,ty

owners to construct or, where necessary, support the expenditure of

public funds. of course, one alternative is to use public funds in

the form of local revenue, grants or loans for the total project.

6.3.1 Priv'ate-Expenditures for Erosion Control. Many owners of

'private property located in the study area have already made

expenditures to protect their property from erosion. Whilea detailed

analysis of these expenditures was not available, some preliminary

observations can be made. Two of the 23 parcels in Reach 1,:th6

undeveloped area,'had some structural controls. one large parcel with

4,295 feet of waterfront and a lot value of $346,400 had erosion

control structures with an assessed value of $5,000. The other parcel

wit h 724 feet of waterfront and valued at $83,900 had erosion control

structures assess,ed at $2,500.

159.

Twenty-six of the 74 parcels in Reach 2, the developing area, had

erosion control structures. Those 26 parcels included a total of

3,160 feet of waterfront and had a total assessed value for erosion

control structures of $39,400; an average expenditure of $12.46 per

foot. The average value of the lots was $10,529. Only two lots with

controls did not have some type of other improvement.

Forty-two of the 76 parcels in Reach 3, the developed area, had

structural controls. Those 76 parcels contained a total of 3,197 feet

of waterfront and a total assessed value for erosion control

structures of $57,150; an average-expenditure of $17.88 per foot. The

average lot value was $10,659. Fourteen of these lots did not have

other improvements.

While the values of control structures were taken from assessment

records, they do indicate a willingness of private property owners to

make expenditures to protect their property from erosion. The total

cost per foot for several of the proposed control options compares

favorably with the assessed value of previous private expenditutes of

$12.46 per foot in Reach 2 and $17.88 per foot in Reach 3. The cost

per foot for each proposed option was:

Reach 1, section 6.2.1.2:

Option I - $ 10.50 per foot

Option II - $ 35.70 per foot

Option III - $ 8.40 per foot

Option IV - $115.60 per foot

160

Reach 2, section 6.2.2.2:

Option I $ 4.19 per foot

Option II $ 43.89.per foot

Option III $ 83.28 per foot

Reach 3, section 6.2.3.2:

Option I $ 60.28 per foot

Option 11 $158.71 per foot.

An allocation of the total cost between private and public

expenditures would make the comparison more favorable toward the

private sector's willingness to pay for the private sector allocation

of the cost of controls. Possible management strategies to enable an

allocation of costs between the private, and public sectors are

discussed in section 5.2.

6.3.2 TaMent of Public Sector Erosion Control Costs. Cpsts.of

erosion control measures were distributed in section 6.2.between

private and publi :c sectors on the basis of assignment of costs to the

private sector equal to identified private benefits and.the remainder

to the public sector. A comparison of the ability of different

,localities to support a public coastal erosion program can be

determined by using a measure of current fiscal effort F,or purposes

of this study fiscal effort is used: 1) to look at the ability of

each locality to.support an erosion control program by using its own

resources; and 2) to provide a basis for establishing priorities in

the allocation of state (or state controlled federal) funds among

coastal localities.

161

Measures of fiscal effort must be used in a selective and careful

manner with respect to certain limitations. The measure selected for

this study is the best available for consideration of state/local

grant arrangements but does not provide a consideration of the total

fiscal differences. For instance, it does not provide a consideration

of federal activities and the many complexities of marked interstate

differences. It does not relate to overll service requirements or

fiscal needs nor the authority and willingness of fiscal units to

provide services. It is however a meaningful comparative measure of

fiscal capacity and effort for local areas as it is used in this

study.

The method used in this study to measure each localities fiscal

effort as a percentage figure is:

% fiscal effort = revenue from own sources per capita
computed revenue capacity per capita

A detailed discussion of fiscal effort and how it is calculated is

provided in Appendix B. This measure of fiscal effort provides a

comprehensive picture of local effort and avoids some of the extremes

inherent in the use of other methods. Table 7 provides the percentage

fiscal effort as calculated from most recent data for coastal counties

and cities.

162

TABLE 7

Fiscal Effort for Coastal Counties and Cities in Virginia

Revenue from Computed
County or Own Sourcesi Revnue Capacity2
City Per Capita Per Capita Fiscal Effort
Counties $ $ $

Accomack 143 259 55
Arlington 696 485 144
Caroline 170 309 55
Charles City 148 270 55
Chesterfield 429 325 132
Essex 185 377 49
Fairfax 675 422 160
Gloucester 193 339 57
Hanover 177 330 54
Henrico 383 360 106
Isle of Wight 229 284 81
James City 302 3.18 95
King George 188 322 58
King & Queen 147 309 48
King William 186 399 47
Lancaster 141 400 35
Mathews 140 325 43
Middlesex 144 367 39
New Kent 196 355 .55
Northampton 126 215 59
Northumberland 165 @354 47
Prince George 168 227 74
Prince William 552 308 179
Richmond 162 320 51
Southampton 133 224 59
Spotsylvania 249 341 73
Stafford 261 285 92
Surry 346 291 119
Westmoreland 145 314 46
York 253 270 94

Cities

Alexandria 581 427 136
Chesapeake 287 223 129
Colonial Heights 246 292 84
Fredericksburg 356 345 103
Hampton 2188 243 119
Hopewell 305 262 116
Newport News 350 267 131

163

Revenue from Computed
Own Sourcesl Revenue Capacity2
Per Capita Per Capita Fiscal Effort
Cities (continued) $ $

Norfolk 333 224 149
Petersburg 336 230 146
Portsmouth 303 226 134
Richmond 537 317 169
Suffolk 202 258 78
Virginia Beach 276 304 91
Williamsburg 386 476 81

Source of Data:

1Data obtained from report of Auditor of Public Accounts of Commonwealth
of Virginia on Comparative Cost of County Government, 1977 and Report of
Auditor of Public Accounts of Commonwealth of Virginia on Comparative Cost
of City Government, 1977. See discussion of revenue from own sources in
Section B.I.2.

164

The average fiscal effort for all coastal counties in Virginia

was 75 percent with a high of 179 percent in Prince William and a low

of 35 percent in Lancaster. For cities the average was 119 percent

with a high of 169 percent in Richmond and a low of 78 percent in

Suffolk.

6.3.2.1 Relationship Between Current Effort, Projected

Erosion Control Costs and Grants-in-Aid. The comparative measures of

fiscal effort can be used to project gross variations in the financial

effort of jurisdiction for implementation of proposed programs with

their own resources and to aid policy-making and administration with

regard to grants-in-aid from one level of government to another. In

fact, grants-in-aid-are generally thought of in terms of providing

equalization (and defining equalization as support for a level of

public service without gross variation) in the financing effort of

recipient jurisdiction.

The selected measure of, fiscal effort is the, best available and

one alternative is for localities with an already high level of fiscal

effort tohave priority for grant funds in direct proportion to the

calculated fiscal effort measure. However, there are constraints to a

direct application as a priority scale for allocation of grants as the

measure is more useful when used with other data. For instance,

fiscal effort does not take into consideration any measure of need

such as, in this case, level of erosion control requirement s based on

severity of the erosion problem. Consideration of two other

165

constraints is important but is outside the scope of this study.

Allocation of grant funds for erosion control should be related to

other aid programs and the effectiveness in use of previous grant

funds should be used to modify a direct application of fiscal effort.

as a priority scale.

A comparison of the projected public cost of a proposed erosion

control program and the locality's current fiscal effort provides a

measure of the gross impact on the financial effort of that

jurisdiction. This comparison can be used to indicate the ability of

the locality to pay for the public portion (or total cost) of the

proposed erosion control program cost. This comparison can also be

-used to modify the direct application of fiscal effort in development

of a priority scale.

Options I and II for each of the 3 reaches were selected for

analysis of projected public costs compared to fiscal effort. The

procedure was to allocate projected erosion control costs to the

private sector in an amount equal to the identified private benefits.

The remaining costs are presumed to be a public responsibility.

Because several structural, non-structural or any combination of

control options are available within each reach, only direct costs of

structural controls are used for this example. Table 8 provides a

summary of these cost distributions. Also provided is the additional

public cost per capita needed to support each option and the added

percentage to fiscal effort.

166

TABLE 8

Impact of Costs for Selected Options on
Current Fiscal Effort

Reach I Reach 2 Reach 3
Category Option I Option II Option I Option II Option I Option II

Cost of option 12.5,550 462,650 37,700 395,000 558,250 1,476,000
Private Benefits 5,572 32,491 90,713 219,103 455,620 455,620
Private Cost 5,572 32,491 90,713 219,103 455,620 455,620
Public Cost 119,978 430,159 0 175,897 .102,630 1,020,380
Population of Middlesex Co.1 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200 7XO 7XO

Added cost per capita 17.00 60.00 0. 25.00 14.010 142,00

Amortized (Total)

Years effective life 1.5 25 15 40 40 50
Annualized cost ($)2 14,335 42,604 4,323 32,958 46,725 122,654
Added cost per capita 2.00 6.00 '.60 4.60 6..50- 17.00
Added percent points to 1 2 0 1 2 5
effort M

Amortized (Public)

Years effective life 15 25 15 40 40 50
Annualized cost 12,615 39,826 0 14,677 8,561 85,132
Added cost per capita 1.75 5.50 0 2.00 1.20 12.00
Added percent points to 1 2 0 1 4
effort M

1 Based on assumption of constant population over period of analysis.,
2 Assume equal annual payments over effective life of opti on at 8 percentage
interest rate.

167

The additional cost per person for each option is of course a

one-time expenditure which could be paid in one year or over several

years. Therefore the only basis of comparison with fiscal effort is

to compare the per person increase as an annualized percentage

increase in.fiscal effort. Costs were amortized at an 8% rate over

the years of effective life of the option. Middlesex County's fiscal

effort was 39 percent, whereas the average for coastal communities was

75 percent (Section B.1.3).

Option II in Reach 3 would result in a significant increases in

fiscal effort. The other options could conceivably be implemented

with only a modest effort, particularly if implemented over a period

of years. However, the total miles in these reachc3 only account for

2.6 percent of the shoreline in Middlesex County. Decision makers

must have information on the total public cost of a program for each

county. While complete data for determining cost for the total reach

were not available for this study, a procedure is provided in the

following section which will give a reasonable estimate.

6.3.2.2 Procedure for Estimating Public Cost of Total

Shoreline Control. In order to determine an approximate cost of

implementing erosion control options on all shoreland of the same

predominate type as in each specific reach, information on shorelands

use classification for Middlesex County was assembled. The shorelands

were divided into two classes depending on use. Available data and

cost information limited the analysis to these two classes. Class I

168

consisted of open and undeveloped land and included agricultural,

recreational) government, preserved, and unmanaged land uses. Class

II consisted of developed land And included residential, commercial,

and industrial land uses. The miles of fastland in each class were

determined, as well as their percentage of the total miles of

fastland.

With certain assumptions, the public cost per foot for selected

control options can be multiplied by the total miles of each class of

shoreline in Middlesex County whichis eroding and subject to

management under the proposed options. The assumptions a@e;

1) The case study reach is representa.tive of the total shoreline

of that class,

2) that similar controls would be equally cost-effective for,.

other reaches,, and

3) that benefits of controls would be equivalent for other

reaches.

For purposes of demonstrating the procedure for estimating public cost

of erosion control for Middlesex County, scientists surveyed the total

shoreline in the county and suggested the total miles in each class

which had eroding shoreline and which.may be suitable for management

under these options. These projections are tentative and application

of the procedure to other counties must be predicated on a detailed

survey of the shoreline in those counties. A preliminary study of

each area would be required to evaluate the reliability of other

county estimates or to provide the basis for establishing a priority

169

For purposes of demonstrating the procedure for estimating public cost

of erosion control for Middlesex County, scientists surveyed the total

shoreline in the county and suggested the total miles in each class

which had eroding shoreline and which may be suitable for management

under these options. These projections are tentative and application

of the procedure to other counties must be predicated on a detailed

survey of the shoreline in those counties. A preliminary study of

each area would be required to evaluate the reliability of other

county estimates or to provide the basis for establishing a priority

system for grant allocation as anIalternative to direct use of the

fiscal effort measure. Such a procedure would however provide the

important link between fiscal effort and a measured need or service

requirement for the priority index.

As shown in Table 9, Middlesex had 213 total miles of shoreland

with 152.4 miles in Class I, open and undeveloped, and 60.6 miles in

Class II developed. However, based on the projections only 25.3 miles

of Class I and 17.0 miles of Class II use were eroding and possibly

suitable for management under the proposed options.

For illustrative purposes (Table 10) only costs associated with

structural costs in Option I, the least amount of effort needed, in

both the open and undeveloped reach (Reach 1) and the developed reach

(Reach 3) were used.

170

TABLE 9

PROJECTIONS OF CLASS I AND CLASS II AREAS IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY
WITH ERODING PROBLEMS

Class I - Open, Undeveloped, Recreational, etc.
Class II - Residential, Commercial, Industrial

r. ca
.,J _@
10 4J 0
0 U) --- H
$4 Cd -1 a 0
W PL, 0
@4

4J
ca C; 4J -1 r.
-1 4w) W U) 0 a) -H co U) a)
41 ljo M co "A a) P e M (n
(J)0 ca F@ Ca 4-1 0 Cd co
rZ4 0 a) 0 0
U) f=4 @-l P., U

1A 6.6 4.7 1.9 4.7 2.2 1_9 Erosion in Class I up to
6'/Yr. Small or no
accretion.
1B 41.4 34.1 7.3 6.2 4.1 2.1
2A 20.6 18.9 1.7 1._3 0.6 0.7 Erosion to 2'/yr.
2B 13.0 9.3 3.7 1.5 0.2 1.3 Erosion to 3.3'/Yr.
2C 10.6 6.5 4.0 .0 0 0
3 24.5 21.2 3.3 9.0 7.0 2-.0 Erosion 1.5 to 2.0'/yr.
4 36.9 19.5 17.4 10'8 6.8 4.3 0.6 mi. of accretion.
5A 11.0 1.5 9.5 4:6 0.6 4.0
5B -24.7 18.6 6.1 9.1 1-4 0.3 Erosion 1.0 to 2.V_/yr.
6A 10.2 -7.2 3.0 7.6 2.4 OA
6B 13.6 10.9 2.7 3.4 0 0

Total 213.1 152.4 60.6 58.2 25.3 17.0

(1) A subjective judgement includes shore with an open water exposure sufficiently
great so as to cause one to suspect erosion.
(2) Much of the-county's shore is in protected creeks, including much of the Piankatank
River.

Data from: Middlesex County Shoreline Situation Report and Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia.

TABLE 10

Projected Costs of Implementing Selected Controls Options
for the Total Shoreline in Middlesex County, Va.

Class Il Class 112

Open and Undeveloped Area Developed Area
Category Total Cost Public Share Total Cost Public Share

Feet of shoreland
in reach (ft) 12,000 12,000 9,300 9,300
Cost of structures
for reach 125,550 100,716 558,250 102,630
Cost per foot 10.50 8.40 60.28 11.00
Total feet shoreland 133,584 133,584 89,760 89,760
class (ft)
Cost of structures 1,402,632 1,122,106 5,410,733 987,360
total county ($)
Population of county3 7,200 7,200 7,200 7,200
Added cost per capita (5)4 195 156 752 137

Amortized (Total)

Years effective life 15 15 40 40
Annualized cost ($)4 160,849 128,682 451,460 82,379
Added cost per capita 2.34 17.87 62.70 11.44
Added percent points to 6 5 17 3
effort M

lFigures based on data for Option I in Reach 1.
2Figures based on data for option I in Reach 3.
3Assume constant population over period of analysis.
4Assume equal annual payments over effective life of option at
8 percent interest rate.

172

system for grant allocation as an alternative to direct use of the

fiscal effort measure. Such a procedure would however provide the

important link between fiscal effort and a measured.nee4 or service

.requirement for the priority index.

As shown in Table 9,- Middlesex had 213 total miles of shoreland

with 152.4 miles in Class I, open and undeveloped, and 60.6 miles in

Class II developed. However, based on the projections only 25.3 miles

of Class I and 17.0 miles of Class II use were eroding and possibly

suitable for management under the proposed options.

For illustrative purposes (Table 10) only costs associated with

structural costs in Option 1, the least amount of effort needed in

both the open and undeveloped reach (Reach 1) and the developed reach

(Reach 3) were used.

Based on this limited analysis, a program for only one county

becomes.extremely expensive.

The 25.3 miles of eroding shoreland classed as I would require a
mimimum expe nditure of $1,402,631 ($195 annual, cost per personj in

total cost with $1,122,106 ($156 added cost per person) of that

allocated to the public sector. The 17.'0 miles of eroding shoreland

classed as II would require a minimum expenditure of $5,410,733 ($752

added cost per person) in total cost with $987,360 ($137 added cost

per person) of that allocated to the public sector. These costs

should be amortized over the life of the structure for comparison with

fiscal effort. The added percentage points to fiscal effort as shown

173

in Table 10 provide a basis for comparison of the cost of an erosion

control program for the county.

The use of Option I represents a minimum necessary effort for

each reach and would result in significant increases in fiscal effort

for both total cost or the public share. Added percentage points to

fiscal effort was (5 + 3) 8 for only the public share of costs to (6 +

17) 23 for total cost including both the public and private share.

These increases in percentage points of fiscal effort do represent a

substantial increase in needed effort above the current 39 percent

just to support one public service program of erosion control.

While this procedure provides a reasonable estimate, one

limitation of this analysis is that cannot be extrapolated to all such

areas in the Bay without a detailed technical assessment of the

shoreline of those areas.

6.4 Application of Study Data to Federal Flood Insurance Program.

A complete analysis of the relationships between the Federal

Flood Insurance Program and the shoreline erosion situation was not

possible within the purview of this study. Nevertheless, some

observations can be made. As explained in section 5.1.4.4 and section

A.4.8. of this report, FIA officials indicate a desire to repeal the V

zone (coastal high hazard area) and the E zone (special flood-related

erosion hazard) provisions of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of

1973, as amended, and place these provisions into another program. In

174

addition to the option of removing erosion from the program, four

other options were suggested (for explanation see section A.4.8.)

1) total prohibition of new construction in erosion hazard areas,

2) setback requirements within erosion zones,

3) no-insurance zones as an alternative to setback requirements,

and

4) moveable structures and buffer zones.

Because information on past damages from flooding is available

only on a high level of consolidation (county level) and the

relationship of insurance coverage to this damage is unknown, the

benefits of erosion control on insurance rates and flood damages

cannot be estimated for this study. Also, the extent to which inplace

erosion control measures impact insurance rates is not known.

The values for shoreland resources as given in section 6.2

indicate a probable impact for some of the proposed insurance

alternatives.

a. A total prohibition of new construction and limiting future

uses to open space in the 67-year erosion hazard areas may have

little, if any, impact in the Reach 3 area which is already

highly developed with single-family dwellings. In the Reach I

and 2 areas, this action would limit potential increases in

privately owned waterfront lot values if these areas could not

develop to the same scale as the Reach 3 area. The average

assessed value per square foot for lots (minus improvements) was

175

$0.91 in Reach 3, $0.66 in Reach 2 the developing area, and $0.31

in Reach 1 the undeveloped area. The area would lose tax

revenues on these potential increased values. But it potentially

could suffer higher flooding damages.

For some parcels in the 67-year hazard zone a limitation on

uses would constitute a "taking" and would probably require

compensation. The total value of prohibited uses could be

estimated by comparing the difference in average value of

improvements on developed lots (plus increases in lot value) and

value of undeveloped lots.

b. The study data provides a good analysis of setback

requirements for the 100 and 200 foot areas. The potential cost

from restriction on ownership is provided in each summary budget

for both depth areas. Not only are the costs of restricted

ownership high in some cases but such action would likely involve

a "taking issue" and involve the ownership type transaction cost

plus the potential cost of public acquisition. Costs of setback

requirements are relatively small for the undeveloped area in

Reach 1, but prohibitively expensive for the developing and

developed areas in Reaches 2 and 3 respectively. The magnitude

of these costs in each reach are:

176

Reach I
100' 200'

restriction on ownership 2,157 4,404

transaction & administration 34,150 34,150

public acquisition 139,022 238,394

TOTAL 175,329 276,948,

Reach 2 100' 200'

restriction on ownership 256,270 512,540

transaction & adminstration 111,OOO 111,000

public acquisition 964,288 1,483,375

TOTAL 1,331,558 2,106,915

Reach 3 100' 200'

restriction on ownership 470,452 921,304

transaction & administration 114,000 114,000

public acquisition 1,399,152 1,850,004

1,983.604 2,885.308

This setback action may have little impact on the rate of

erosion but would result in benefits from a reduction of

insurance coverage and disaster payments.

c. The no-insurance provision in the 30-year erosionrate zone

would simply transfer any risk from coastal erosion to the

private property owner from the federal insurance program.

177

Presumably, disaster assistance payment would be prohibited for

these areas.

d. An analysis of buffer zones is covered in the discussion of

each reach under Potential Impact from Restriction on Ownership

and the ownership and regulatory category under Transaction and

Administration.

A program of moveable structures could become extremely

expensive. Additional cost would be imposed at the time of

initial construction. Cost estimates for this type of building

design are available in Elevated Residential Structures -

Reducing Flood Damage Through Building Design: A Guide Manual,

by the Federal Insurance Administration, HUD-FIA-184, September

1976. The actual relocation of dwellings is a costly

alternative. Relocation cost for moving all dwellings from the

100' and 200' areas of the three reaches in the study are:

Reach
1 2 3

100, 93,100 540 3-200 634,800

2001 170,150 731,150 634,800

Similar projections could be projected for the total coastal

area.

178

CHAPTER 7

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 COMMENTS

7.1-1 Individual action versus treatment of the "reach". The

evidence that individual, piecemeal attempts at structural control of

erosion are frequently ineffective, inefficient, and/or may have

adverse impacts on adjacent property is sufficient to warrant

implementation of management strategies which treat entire shoreline

reaches as comprehensive units. In addition to the benefits of

increased effectiveness and reduction of adverse impacts, 4

reach-comprehepsive approach in all likelihood will have a lower unit

cost.

7.1.2 Risk awareness.. There are frequent instances of transfer

of shoreline ownership wherein the new owner has only a vague or no

awareness of the existence of an erosion problem. If they were aware

of the risk, they could factor the costof erosion prevention into the

cost of ownership.

7.1.3 Highly Eroding Shorelines - Geographic Areas of Particular

Concern. Inasmuch as highly eroding shorelines are considered as

GAPC's, state oversight on management strategies and their

implementation is appropriate. The central goal of management of the

hazard is the reduction of the risk of victimization by erosion of

both private and public property along'th e shoreline. In a broader

179

context the management strategy may be viewed as a mechanism to

alleviate the problem for those shorefront owners now affected by the

hazard and to reduce the potential for future victimization by the

erosion. In both cases another objective is to reduce the cost to the

public for emergency relief generated by imprudent occupation within

the erosion zone. In the first case the strategy is to prevent the

impending loss of existing structures. The second case represents

actions designed to avoid future need for emergency measures.

7.1.3.1 Definition of the erosion zone. Shoreline segments

experiencing average erosion rates Rreater than two feet per year have

been defined as highly eroding areas. Given this definition, about

330 miles of shoreline have been given an interim designation as

highly eroding areas zones. This interim designation is based upon a

comparison of maps which exhibit the high water line published circa

1850 and circa 1950 (Byrne and Anderson, 1977). Although this is

suitable as an interim designation which illustrates the magnitude of

the problem, it is unsuitable for final delineation because:

1) The delineation does not account for shoreline segments which

have been stabilized.

2) The averaging process used results in cases where the length

of shoreline delineated is larger than actually experiencing an

erosion rate greater than 2 feet per year.

3) Finally, the comparison was between high water lines. The

high water line may show appreciable variability in position due

to seasonal variation in wave input or to storms. A more

180

meaningful criterion would be the retreat of the fastland-shore

boundary. This would be either a bluff line or the limit of

permanent vegetation.

Given the above it is proposed that the final designation of the

erosion zones be made using comparison of aerial photographs obtained

at least 25 years apart, Preferably the shoreline should be

rephotographed at the start of implementation and every 5 to 10 years

thereafter,lso.that the extent and effectiveness of existing shoreline

defense structures can be incorporated in the pr ocess of risk

delineation. Guidelines for the determination or recession rates are

provided in Appendix D.

7.1.3.2 Management Strategies. The management strategies

adopted to cope with erosion must fulfill the management goal while

withstanding the legal issue of taking. In this context the

assessment of "risk" must be distinguished from the exposure to high

erosion rates, or hazard. Hazard in the present application means

exposure to shoreline retreat due to high erosion rates. Risk, on the

other ha nd, incorporates the element of existing, planned, and

potential use of the areas subject to the hazard. Thus management

strategies should reflect, for the particular "hazard" designated

reaches, the consideration of risk. The economic methodology provides

adecision framework for comparing the risk associated with highly

eroding areas which are at different levels of development and use.

181

7.2 Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1) The Commonwealth enhance its program of technical advisory

services to private property owners, municipalities and counties

including the establishment of a procedure to make the decision

,making methodology resulting from tis study available to local

units of government.

2) It be the policy of the Commonwealth to augment the

development and implementation of a public education program on

tidal shoreline erosion.

3) It be the policy of the Commonwealth.to encourage the

treatment of shoreline reaches in shore erosion mitigation

measures as opposed to individual lots. Furthermore, any

programs of public cost sharing for erosion control mitigation

should be restricted to reach comprehensive measures.

4) The Commonwealth should enable local governments to establish

Erosion Abatement Districts wherein the locality would be

empowered to provide financing programs for the mitigation of

erosion impacts.

5) The Commonwealth should enable local governments to establish

minimum setback lines along those shoreline segments with eroding

areas shoreward of which new construction would be prohibited,

restricted according to type of use, or allowed by permit with

such conditions attached thereto as deemed appropriate by local

governments.

182

6) Legislation be enacted which requires that the transfer of

shoreline property be conditioned so that the prospective buyer

signifies his awareness of the erosion rate of the property in

question by requiring formal acknowledgement of that awareness.

7) The Commonwealth require subdivision ordinances, in

localities with tidal shoreline, to provide a provision for

protection from and mitigation of shore erosion. The locality

thereto would:

a) Require a developer to post a performance bond for

construction of erosion abatement structures;

b) Inspect such structures before releasing such bond;

c) Require an erosion mitigation or protection plan as part

of the subdivision plat approval procedures.

8). Localities with todal shorelines should be specifically

authorized to:

a) Prepare erosion abatement plans as part of their

comprehensive plans, and

b) Provide that a purpose of zoning be to protect property

from the hazards of shoreline erosion.

9) Localities with tidal shorelines be specifically authorized

to construct, maintain, or repair erosion control structures free

of legal liability for subsequent but unintended damage to or

loss of private property which could be fully or partially

attributed to such structures.

183

10) The Commonwealth (through the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science) designate highly erodable areas by comparing aerial

photographs at least 25 years apart and by determining the retrat

of the fastland edge (bluffline or vegetation) through

photogrammetric techniques.

11) The construction of erosion control structures should be

placed under the review of suitably trained inspectors so as to

insure the use of appropriate construction techniques and

materials.

REFERENCE

Byrne, R. J. and G. L. Anderson. 1977. Shoreline Erosion in
Tidewater Virginia. SRAMSOE No. 111, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science Gloucester Point, VA., 102 pp.

184

CHAPTER 8

METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION

8.1 Introduction

To, implement the recommendations discussed in Chapter 7 a number

of.spec ific pub lic policy actions by the Commonwealth can.be suggested

here. In.the following list Chapter 71s recommendations are reordered

slightly simply to highlight areas of.linkage under existing

legislation and also to present the recommendations in the form of a

broad.agenda for action in establishment of a state coastal erosion

abatement and impact mitigation program.

A basic question arising from current state policy concerns the

designation of a lead agency to direct such a program. Article 2.2,

section 21-11.16 of the state Code ("Declaration of Policy," Shore

Erosion Control Act) assigns broad responsibility to.the Virginia Soil

and Water Conservation Commission for coordination of shore erosion

programs. To date, however, as noted previously, funding

appropriations, to effectuate a program have not been adeq Iuate.

Following the discussion of recommendations, a) a draft version
of a reconstituted Article 2.2, sec. 21-11.16.1 b) supporting sample

subdivision and zoning ordinance amendments, and c) sample language

for possible incorporation in new enabling legislation to authorize

creation of erosion abatement districts, are all presented.

185

8.2 Designation of Coastal Erosion Areas

Early action by the state in identifying and designating final

high erosion areas will be needed prior to action on a number of this

report's other recommendations, particularly those involving new

regulatory activity at the local level. The designation procedure

described in Chapter 7 represents the most practicable one now

available, but a time frame for completion of "interim" designations

by the state needs to be established. This time frame should be

incorporated in Article 2.2, sec. 21-11;16 as well as any subsequent

legislative or administrative proposals dealing with local planning

and regulation of erosion area uses. Several examples are discussed

later in this chapter. Designation of erosion areas will also

establish an operational basis for conducting the state's program of

financial assistance to localities for shoreline management.

8.3 Erosion Abatement Policy Addenda

Recommendations 1, 29 3, and 7 in Chapter 7 all concern possible

refinements in the state's present policies toward erosion control

objectives and responsibilities. The following actions should be

considered for possible use in implementing this aspect of the state's

program.

186

A. Public Education,Program

Recommended actions include:

Enhancement of state funding for development of a state research

and public education program designed to address the causes and

effects of coastal erosion and preferred methods of treatment.

Accomplishment of the program's objectives will depend largely on

the level of funding it receives.

B. Application of Erosion Abatement Measures By Shoreline Reach

Recommended actions include:

1. Amendment of Article 2.2, s. 21-11.16 to provide for the

establishment of a cooperative state-local program of a)

designating coastal erosion areas by shoreline reach and b)

considering both structural and nonstructural methods of

reducing erosion damages to an acceptable level.

2. Amendment of Title 15.1, chapter 11 (Planning, Subdivision of

Land and Zoning) by addition of the following:

a) A definition of "shoreline reach" in Art. 1, s. 15.1-

430.

b) A reference to study of erosion 'areas in Art. 4, S.

15.1-447.

187

C. Technical Assistance

Recommended actions include:

1. Initiation of a state training program placed under the

direction of the state's lead agency in cooperation with the

Virginia Institute of Marine Science and regional Soil and

Water Conservation Districts. Such a program should provide:

a) Training for local and state officials.

b) Training for private marine contractors.

2. Development of shoreline erosion abatement "technical

guidelines" by the state's lead agency in cooperation with

the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the state Soil and

Water Conservation Commission, and appropriate local or

regional agencies.

D. State Funding to Localities

An implicit assumption in Chapter Ps discussion of recommended

actions is that funding to conduct a state program will, in fact,

become available for allocation to responsible state agencies and

local public agencies engaged in shoreline management. Early action

should be taken by the state, however, to insure that such funding

will be forthcoming on a continuing basis. Establishment of an

Erosion Fund by the General Assembly is strongly recommended to insure

this continuity. The sequence for establishing such a fund might

consist of the following:

188

1. Designation'of a lead agency to coordinate all financial

assistance of the state to coastal localities for any

projects within designated erosion hazard areas, and vesting

of this agency with authority to promulgate rules and

regulations regarding:

a) Disposition of available funds, and

b) Certification of prescribed erosion abatement,plans

submitted by funding applicants.

Amendment of Article 2.2, s. 21-11.16 to provide for this

designation and authorization is recommended.

2. Articulation of legislative priorities regarding costs and

benefits to be accrued as a result of the program. This

action could also be accomplished through amendment of

Article 2.2, s. 21-11.16. A suggested listing of

considerations for funding assistance would be the degree to

which a proposed project:

a) is intended to serve critical or hazardous erosion

areas experiencing severe impact with determinations or

impact based on erosion rate and economic impact analysis.

b) is intended to serve aras offering superior suitability

for public access to water.

c) demonstrates greatest anticipated public benefits of

state assistance in relation to anticipated costs.

d) is intended to serve areas for which proven structural

erosion abatement measures applied by shoreline reach

exist or are planned.

189

As noted, funding for projects within designated erosion areas

should be predicated on preparation and submission of acceptable

abatement plans (supplemented with a financing element) according

to the procedure outlined below in section 8.5.A.

8.4 Public Notification of Erosion Hazard

Recommended actions for insuring public notification of erosion

rates include the following:
1. Development of model subdivision ordinance amendments3

containing a provision for posting of signs in subdivisions

within designated erosion areas indicating the area's

existing and projected natural erosion rates. The model

should include the following provisions for new shoreline

property owners:

a) The owner must be notified of and acknowledge the

erosion rate for the local area.

b) The owner must notify the local planning agent of major

planned shorefront improvements.

0 The owner is then notified of projected increases or

reductions in the property's erosion rate resulting

from the proposed improvement.

d) The developer must then post a performance bond upon

the property sufficient to offset costs of adequate

abatement structure installation and maintenance

prior to initiation of the planned improvement.

190

2. Amendment of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 7 (Land

Subdivision and Development) by addition of the following:

a) A requirement that plans and specifications for.

erosion mitigation or abatement measures be

submitted, in Article 7, s. 15.1-48 0.

b) The words "erosion abatement" to s. 15.1-466.d.

c) A new section to provide for inspection of abatement

structure maintenance by a qualified agent.

3. Amendment of Title 55, Chapter 19 (Subdivided Land Sales Act)

by addition of local erosion rate information material to

required notices of intention filed with the Virginia Real

Estate Commission (s. 329.2).

4. Adoption of new legislation requiring that prior to the sale

of shorefront property, the prospective purchaser be

notified, in writing, if the land be within a designated

erosion area; and that if the land be within a designated

erosion area, the prospective purchaser also be notified in

writing of the rate of erosion of that land. The prospective

purchaser of any shorefront land also should be advised, in

writing, by the seller that the land in question may be

subject to some degree of natural alteration due to the

interaction of land and water.

8.5 Mitigation Measures

As noted in section 5.2.2 and elsewhere, the power to regulate

shoreline uses in hazard zones resides largely with local governments,

191

and needs to be considered in close conjunction with abatement

planning and financing methods. Recommended actions for addressing

each of these three concerns include the following:

A. Development of Erosion Abatement Plans

1. Amendment of Title 15.1. Chapter 11 to provide a legal basis

for local land management with the objective of preserving

and protecting the state's coastal shorelines. Suggested

additions include:

a) Amendment of art. 4, s. 15.1-446 by addition of the

words "erosion hazard."

b) Amendment of s. 15.1-447.1 by addition of the words

erosion abatement and erosion damage prevention

measures."

c) Amendment of s. 15.1-447.2 by addition of the

following:

"(f) Erosion Abatement Plan for designated areas, to

include:

(1) Identification of available structural and

nonstructural mitigation measures.

(2) An environmental assessment of available

mitigation measures.

(3) Provision for a cost/benefit analysis of

available mitigation measures."

192

B. Zoning

Recommended actions include:

1. Development of model zoning ordinance amendments4 providing

for creation of a floating, or overlay, "Erosion" district

which would set forth:

a) A legal basis for establishing the district.

b) Provision for conditional permitting of specified,

shoreline uses, conditioned upon satisfaction of

minimum shoreline defense standards determined by

the local planning commission in consultation with

the state's lead'agency.

2. Amendment of Title 15.1, Chap. 11, Art. 8 (Zoning) by

addition of the following:

a) The word "erosion" to s. 15.1-489.1.

b) The words "erosion damage protection" to s. 15.1-489.4.

c) The word "erosion" to s. 15.1-489.6.

d) The words "and shorelines" to s. 15.1-490.

C. Setback Regulation In Lieu of Zoning

Amendment of Title 15.1, Chap. 1, s. 29.2 (General Provisions) to

authorize establishment of shoreline setback regulations within areas

experiencing severe shoreline erosion or within other areas subject to

approved state coastal resources management policies.

193

D. Subdivision Regulation

Recommended actions for regulation of coastal subdivisions are

presented in section 8.4, above.

E. Erosion Abatement Districting (Cost-Sharing)

Provisions to insure adequate financing of public erosion

abatement measures are considered critical to accomplishment of the

oyprall management program. In combination with measures described

earlier, the following is recommended:

1. Adoption by the state of new enabling legislation to

authorize creation of erosion abatement districts

corresponding in operation to water supply and sewage

disposal authorities (Title 15.1, Chap. 28). Legislation

should provide for:

a) Creation of an erosion abatement district either by:

(1) Petition of property owners residing within the

political jurisdication and within a designated

erosion hazard area; or

(2) Request of the local governing body(s) prior to

or following consideration by the local planning

commission(s).

In the case of either (1) or (2) provision for preparation of a local

erosion abatement plan supplemented by a financing element, prior to

district establishment, should be set forth. Provision should also be

made for optional assumption of erosion district powers and

194

responsibilities by the local governing body (or bodies) creating the

district. A district would be governed by a board of directors with

the following qualifications, powers, and duties:

a) A majority of board members must reside within designated

erosion hazard areas within the jurisdiction(s) establishing

the district.

b) Board powers would include:

(1) Power to receive and disburse funds.

(2) Power to impose assessments upon-properties abutting

designated erosion hazard areas on the basis of

shorefront footage owned, in amounts sufficient to

obtain adequate contributions toward costs incurred

through provision of necessary shoreline impovements
by the district.5

(3) Power to issue revenue bonds to finance necessary

facilities, and power to seek financing support.

(4) Power to exercise eminent domain to acquire

construction and maintenance easements provided by

the district.

(5) Power to own and dispose of property, to contract

for detailed structural designs, to obtain bids for

construction of structures, and to construct and

maintain structures and necessary facilities.

C) Upon creation, district board members should be empowered to

address erosion abatement needs in designated erosion hazard

195

areas throughout the jurisdiction(s) upon petition of a

majority of property owners within such areas or upon request

by the local governing body(s). In such case, abatement

plans with financing elements for each hazard area served

should be required for submission to district, with provision

for public hearing, prior to execution of an agreement to

serve the area requesting the service.

F. Amendment 15.1-31

Amendment of 15.1-31 by inclusion of the words "erosion

protection devices" in the list of "work" in section (a) and the words

"or erosion control district" following "town" in both (a) and (c).

These changes would serve to broaden 15.1-31 to include erosion

protection devices in the list of construction a county, city or town

could perform and be free from suit and to include "erosion control

districts" in that freedom from suit. (see also C hapter 4.2).

The reworded section would read as follows:

�15.1-31. Construction of dams, levees, seawalls, etc.; certain

proceedings prohibited. - (a) any county, city or town or erosion

control district may construct a dam, levee, seawall, erosion

protection devices or other structure or device, or perform

dredging operations hereinafter referred to as "works", the

purpose of which is to prevent the flooding or inundation of such

county, city or town, or part thereof. The design construction,

196

performance, maintenance and operation of any of such works is

hereby declared to be a proper governmental function for a public

purpose. (b) The General Assembly hereby withdraws the right of

any person, firm, cooperation, association or political

subdivision to bring, and prohibits the bringing of, any action

at law or suit in equity against any county, city or town or

erosion control district because of, or arising out of, the

design, maintenance, performance, operation or existence of such

works but nothing herein shall prevent any such action or suit

based upon a written contract, but this provision shall not be

constructed to authorize the taking of private property without

just compensation therefor and provided further that the flooding

or inundation of any lands of any other person by the

construction of a dam or levee to impound or control fresh water

shall be taking of such land within the meaning of the foregoing

provision. (Code 1950(Suppl.),� 15-20.6; 1960,c.516; 1962,c.623;

1966,c270; 1968,c.793).

FOOTNOTES

IReferi'to Appendix E.
3Refer to Appendix F.
4Refer to Appendix G.
5Through amendment of Title 15.1, Chap. 7, Art. 2 (Assessment for
Local Improvements) so as to incorporate assessments imposed for the
purpose of financing coastal erosion abatement structure installation
and maintenance by the local governing body.

197

A P P E N D I C E S

199

APPENDIX A

PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHING COSTS AND IMPACT VALUES TO PROVIDE

A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE EROSION CONTROL STRATEGIES

This appendix provides an explanation of the data needs for the

analysis as well as an indication as to the location of the data

sources. It provides examples of the procedures used to calculate

values for each component used to establish cost and benefit values.

Finally, it provides an explanation of procedures used to allocate

costs and benefits among alternative management strategies.

A.1 Establishing Values for Impact on Property, Improvements, and

Land Use

Costs and benefits associated with various structural and non-

structural controls for prevention of erosion-related damages must be

determined. However, before a budget can be constructed, values for

impact of erosion control strategies on property, improvements, and

land use must be established. The following section describes the

ground rules and methods for determining those values. Six areas of

impact were used in the analysis. They were the 100' and 200' depth

frontage areas and erosion rate depth areas for 10, 15, 30, and 67

year periods.

A.1.1 Establishing Area of Impact. Area for each setback or

erosion year period was calculated for each property segment within

the reach on basis of square feet or portion of acres involved. Step

I in this process was to identify the area in each segment to be

201

impacted by the 10, 15, 30 and 67 year erosion rates. Areas were

determined by multiplying the years in each period by the historical
erosion rate in feet per yearl by the years in that period for each

individual transect--the point on the shoreline where a recession rate

was, calculated.

Example:
erosion rate (feet/year) x years = feet
2.4 feet/year x 10 years = 24 feet

The resultant depth line for the number of feet of erosion for

each period was measured from the point of high water mark and noted

on aerial photographs of the individual parcels of property.

The second,step in the analysis was to establish the working

table of the present dollar values for each category for each parcel

in the impact area. These values were consolidated for each reach

(see section 6.2.1 for an example of a working table). The categories

include: 1) land use, 2) dwellings, 3) other structures, 4) property

values, and 5) loss of tax revenue. The following sections describe

how these values were established.

A.1.2 Establishing Values for Land-Use. The land-use category

includes annual productivity on agricultural and forest land. The

values for agricultural and forest land-use were determined by

multiplying number of acres in each soil capability class or site

index grouping in the impact area by dollar value of average annual

net return (rate) per acre for each class and summing for the total.

Type of production and soil capability or site index grouping was

202

determined from use-value assessment in Commissioner of Revenue's

office or soil survey and mapping data. The rate per acre for

agriculture and forestry was obtained from use-value assessment
analysis for Middlesex County2.

By Soil Class in Agriculture
Average Annual Net Return
Soil Capability Per Acre
Class Agriculture in Middlesex

$590
530
390
IV 290
V 200
VI 140
VII 60
VIII 40

By Site Index Grouping in Forestry
Average Annual Net Return
Per Acre
Site Index Grouping Forestry in Middlesex

excellent $375
good 280
fair 209
non-productive 50

Example:
2A agriculture-Class I and II; 2A forest - excellent
acres x rate/acre = $ value

2 acres x 590 rate/acre = $1,180 value
2 acres x 375 rate/acre = $ 749 value

Total Annual Net Return = $1,920 value

A.1.3 Establishing Values for Dwellings. Present value was

obtained for dwellings on each shorefront parcel of property in the

reach from recent assessment records in the Commissioner of Revenue's

office for the county. If the dwelling was located in the 100', 200'

or 10, 15, 30, or 67 year erosion area, the total value was recorded.

203

If not, a second cost component for dwellings was based on decrease in

distance between dwelling and shoreline as a result of projected

erosion action. Those values were based on recent research findings
by Armstrong and Denuyl3:

As distance declines to below 100 feet and to 75 feet between
shoreline and dwellings, 30 percent of its value is lost.

As distance declines from 75 to 51 feet, 70 percent of value is
lost.

As distance declines below 50 feet, 100 percent of value is lost.
At this point, a buyer coul7d-not be found and a mortgage could
not be obtained.

Current distance in feet between dwelling and shoreline was

obtained by interpretation of aerial photography. The depth of the

projected erosion action for each property segment for each erosion

period was compared to this distance and values deducted accordingly.

Example:

Assessment market value of dwelling $40,000

Distance from shoreline is 110'

Erosion rate 2'/year for 15 year period
15 yr. x 2' yr. = 30 feet
110' - 30' = 80 feet
Thus, 30 percent of structure value lost:
$40,000 x 30% = $12,000

If structure were in the impact area of a 67 year period,
67 yr. x 2' yr. = 134 feet
134 ' > 110' thus:
The loss would be = $40,000

204

A.1.4 Establishing Values for Other Structures. Present value

of "other" structures on land or water was obtained for each parcel

from recent assessment records in the Commissioner of Revenue's office

for the county. If structures were located in the impact area, the

total value was recorded. Decrease in distance was assumed

unimportant for this analysis. The decision rule was that structures

on land maintain a constant value until the main structure is lost.

At that time other structures on land lose all their value. Those

structures on water lose total value if any erosion occurs.

The distinction as to whether a building was on land and subject

to subsidized insurance or on water and not subject to insurance was

important for evaluating impacts as they affect insurance programs.

A.1.5 Establishing Property Values-Soil Loss. Present value of

property (minus improvements) for each parcel in the study area was

obtained from assessment records in the Commissioner of Revenue's

Office. Value was calculated on basis of square footage for use in

determining value of loss due to erosion. That is, square footage in

the parcel was divided by present value to obtain present value per

square foot of the parcel.

Square feet in each setback or erosion year period impact area as

previously obtained (section A.1.1.) was multiplied by the value per

square foot to get a proportionate value per square foot of soil lost

to erosion.

205

.Example:

A 11.68 acre parcel valued at $0.16 per square foot with
dimensions of 691.3 ft. of waterfront and 736 feet deep, and
a 1.65 foot per year erosion 100' area:

69,130 sq. ft. of soil lost
at .16 per sq. ft.
69,130 x .16 = $11,061

200' area: 138P260 x .16 = $22,122

Years: annual erosion rate x years
x width of lot x value/sq. ft.

10 yr: 1.65 x 10 x 691.3 x .16 = $ 1,825
15 yr: 1.65 x 15 x 691.3 x .16 = 2,736
30 yr: 1.65 x 30 x 691.3 x .16 = 5.%471
67 yr: 1.65 x 67 x 691.3 x .16 = 12,228

The total loss eventually will be reflected in tax revenues.

Tax revenue loss is discussed in section A.1.8. The actual property

value as explained in the next section may suffer little decline,

however, until a lot is no longer deep enough to build on.

A.1.6 Establishing Property Value-Loss of Building Site. The

basis for making calculations of losses due to inability to build on a

lot was the subdivision regulations in Middlesex County which requires
lot sizes on the following basis:4

Lot size with public water and sewer
801 width
10,000 sq. ft. area

only public water
100' width
15)000 sq. ft. area

only public sewer
801 width
12,000 sq. ft. area

neither public water or sewer
100' width
17,500 sq. ft. area

206

For our study, any lot size 80' width and 10,000 sq. ft. area

could not be built on. Thus, any lot which became smaller than this

because of erosion induced action would lose most of its value. Of

course, alternative action may result in combining lots and thus the

appraised value for some lots with smaller acreages are appraised at a

positive value. Under recent assessment for Middlesex County, a lot

totally eroded away or under water was valued at zero. Lots less than

the size required for building are decreased in value but are not zero

because other opportunities exist. Sixteen lots in our sample were

identified by assessors as being too small to build on. The average

market value of these lots was placed at $2,700.

Decision rules on lots: No loss in market value from soil loss
until lot less than 80' width and 10,000
sq. ft. area.

Lots less than 80' width and 10,000 sq.
ft. lose total value down to $2,700.

Lots almost totally under water lose
total value.

A.1.7 Establishing Property Value-Loss of Amenity. Several

recent research results confirm the existence of aesthetic value

associated with shoreline location and several procedures for
separating this value from the basic land values exist.5

The amenity value specific to the shorefront location is

extremely hard to calculate. Many variables affect value of

waterfront property. Among these are the depth of the water access,

location, frontage feet, height above the water, erosion

207

characteristics. However, several sources provide basis for a

reasonable estimate.

Based on recent market sales data for Middlesex, minimum value

for waterfront lots over lots in an open field was approximately

$7,000 per acre. Lots with access to water may be almost as valuable

as waterfront but without the erosion problem. Lots (1/4 to 1/2 acre)

go from $3,000 to $6,000 per lot. Waterfront lots start in the

$10,000 - $12,000 range and go up to $19,000 per acre in exclusive

areas.6

Brown and Pollakowski found proximity to shore of 100' to be

worth $4,100 per unit more than to be over 500' back. Their analysis,

and that of others, provides a positive value for close proximity
shorefront property.7 Although close proximity may provide an amenity

value, erosion characteristics have been shown to negate some of that

value.

The impact of erosion on value of a shorefront lot depends on

depth of a particular lot. In large acreage areas belonging.to one

parcel, erosion of the waterfront does not destroy value of that

frontage acreage. Loss of waterfront soil simply means any subdivided

lot extends deeper into the owned property and the result is to

substitute a waterfront use for other uses.

The following value assessments were assigned to various study
parcels in Middlesex County during the 1978 reassessment.8

208

Type Use Value Per Acre

good water front $8,000
water view 4,000
creek front 2,500
low-marshy waterfront 2,500
tillable 1,000
timber 800
pasture 700
swampy 200

Thus, if waterfront replaces tillable areas, then the loss is not

$8,000 per acre, but $1,000 per acre.

However, where a lot is owned separately from surrounding areas,

that particular owner loses the value of the waterfront area if he can

no longer build on it. Although second tier property may increase in

value, that increase is limited because the first line owner maintains

control over use as long as some of the front parcel is remaining.

A comparison of lot prices in the Middlesex County study area

indicated a difference between waterfront and second tier lots to be

approximately $4,000. This total value cannot be attributed only to

amenity values. Lot size and other location factors must be

considered.

Armstrong and Denuyl's findings provide some guidance in the

evaluation of amenity value lost from erosion characterisitcs. Their

basic conclusions are:9

When vegetative cover of a parcel is lost due to erosion, the
normal building lot parcel loses 25 percent of its amenity value.

When the owner is no longer able to build on that lot, the
remaining amenity value is lost.

209

Additional research and analysis is needed before calculation on

amenity values can be utilized in this type study.

A.1.8 Establishing-Property Value-Loss of Tax Revenue. While

soil loss may not impact the actual market value of property until lot

cannot be built on, eventually losses will be reflected in tax

revenues. The recent assessment for Middlesex County supports this

assumption. Whenever a property owner requested a tax reduction due

to soil loss, it was granted. Thus, for purposes of this study the

loss in dollar value was multiplied by the current Middlesex County

tax rate of 43 cents per hundred valuation.

dollar loss x .43/hundred = annual tax loss

A.1.9 Costs of Relocation of Structures. Relocation may be a

management alternative. Relocation for major structures may impose

costs on either private or public parties and may be tied to public

acquisition. A relocation cost was calculated for each major

structure located in the impacted area. Size of dwelling was obtained

from assessment records in Commissioner of Revenue's office. The

attached schedule of costs for house relocation was utilized.10 These

values may be used with any combination of controls.

Relocation of House to a Non-Flood Site

1. General - Relocation of a house that is
subject to frequent flooding involves the physical
raising and moving of the superstructure to a new
site beyond the limits of the flood plain. This
entails disconnecting and capping all utilities at
the present site, removal of obstructions enroute
to the new location, construction of a new

210

foundation/basement at the relocation site,
backfilling the existing basement, and landscaping
both lots.

The cost for these items is evaluated on the
relatively ideal premises that:
a. The house can be relocated with a 10-mile
radius.
b. A new housing site is available along an
existing public road with utility
service.
c. The existing electrical and mechanical
fixtures, in the house to be relocated,
comply with local building codes.

The largest portion of the total cost for house
relocation is the raising and moving of the
superstructure. This cost increases significantly
for a two-story house over a one-story dwelling,
because of the additional problems encountered
when moving a taller structure.

2. Cost estimates - Figure Al gives the
estimated cost for a typical house relocation,
based on the previous assumptions, in proportion
to the square foot area of the first floor. This
cost does not include the expenses which may be
incurred during relocation (such as, temporary
disconnection of traffic signals and overhead
powerlines and removal of trees). The curves are
a result of the cost estimates compiled for the
various houses visited and hypothetical houses.
Because many of the houses in the areas inspected
were of similar size, hypothetical homes had to be
assumed to give the variation in floor area
required for the curves. Such hypothetical homes
are typical of those structures which were
observed in the communities that were visited,
although specific samples were not noted.

The costs for temporary disconnection of overhead
transmission lines and traffic signals, along with
the cost for-the necessary tree removals, will be
dependent upon the route to be traversed when
moving the house. The costs for disconnections
and removals are estimated as:
a. $1,500 per service interruption of
overhead transmission lines.
b. $250 per intersection for service
interruption of overhead traffic signals.
c. $400 per large tree removal.

211

C-%01

0 24
0

22
0

z Gf
20

0
w is
Cr

14 NOTE: For brick and brick veneer
add $0.80 per square. foot.

12
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
044

FIRST FLOOR SQUARE FOOT AREA

Figure A-1. House Relocation Cost. Source: IWR Pamphlet No. 4,
U.S. Army Engineering District, Baltimore Md., July, 1977.

In the event that public utilities are not
available at the proposed new site, an additional
$2,700 is to be added to the figure obtained from
the appropriate curve. This amount includes a
1,000 gallon septic tank at $500, drilling a
100-foot well at $800., and a 250-770 GPH well
pump at $1,400.

A.1.10 Consolidation of Parcel Values into Reach Summary.

Because the management decision framework should be placed on a reach-

by-reach basis, the costs and benefit values to be used for

comparative purposes are the consolidated reach values. Individual

parcel values were consolidated into a reach summary. The established

values for dwellings, other structures, property and loss of building

site were expressed in present dollar values. Annual loss of property

taxes and annual net return for land-use were also expressed in

present value based on the following:

Assumption of constant annual stream of benefits based on a
constant level of net profit And a constant tax rate over the period
of analysis.

10 yr. 15 yr. 30 yr. 67 yr. Inf.
6.71 8.56 11.26 12.44 12.50

A.2 Determining Cost of Structural Controls for Each Project Option

For each shoreline reach, sets of proposed appropriate structural

control measures, hereafter called options, were selected by shoreline

erosion technical experts.

A.2.1 Cost of Structures. The capital costs of implementing the

proposed structural control measures were based on standard cost

213

guides with costs in present dollar values. The small amount of

operation and maintenance costs were discounted to current dollars.

Costs were determined for proposed structures in each segment of the

reach and summed for the total reach. The expected effectiveness in

percentage terms of control of erosion by the structural controls and

time period of effectiveness were provided for each reach.

A.2.2 Costs of Technical Assistance. In addition to the direct costs

of the control structures is the expense of technical assistance for

shoreline evaluation, design of the appropriate control structure and

on-going maintenance and field checks. These tasks involve three

types of costs:

1) Technical work of measuring erosion rates and tabulating data
- 4 man-days/mile of shoreline @ $40/day + $20/mile for
supplies (overhead not included)

2) Scientific analysis of erosion rates including field, lab,
and office work - 4 man-days/mile of shoreline @ $75/day
(overhead not included).

3) General oversight of reaches with control structures
including maintenance and field checks, e.g., routine and
after storms @ $15 - 18,000 annually (overhead not included).

A.2.3 Shoreline and Nearshore Effects. In some cases, there may

be impacts on the shoreline and/or the nearshore as a result of a

control structure being constructed. These impacts, called external

effects, impose costs or benefits on others. For instance, in the

case of Reach 1, Segment 7, a 300 ft. terminal groin is the preferred

action for Option I. The effects of such an action include reduced

filling of Mill Creek, thus decreasing the need for dredging of public

214

boating area at $4.50 per cubic yard and improved shelter to Mill

Creek. The groin, in addition to trapping longshore drift, building a

beach, and minimizing erosion, also has the other nearshore effects.

In this case, the effect is a benefit accruing to the public. Thus,

the categories of shoreland and nearshore effects ensure consideration

of such costs and benefits. However, with the exception of

information on dredging and beach replenishment, measurements of the

impact of control measures on the nearshore and shore areas are

generally not available.

A.3 Calculation of Administrative and Transaction Costs

The transaction and administrative costs are important components

of the analysis and may differ significantly for various management

strategies. An explanation of cost calculations for five separate

management categories is presented. Costs include direct and overhead

expenses. Legal costs and administration of a compensation system if

appropriate were included in each category. Costs are displayed on a

reach-by-reach basis. The five categories are ownership, regulatory,

,financial/incentives, data collection/planning/research, and

education/assistance.

A.3.1 Ownership. The ownership category encompasses such

activities as public acquisition, easements, and programs for

relocation of property.

215

Costs Per Reach

Costs per taking transaction (parcel)12

legal fees (15 hours @ $40/hr $ 600
title examination 200
appraisal 200
other 500

Average cost per transaction $1,500
number parcels in reach subject to
taking13 x $1,500 $

A.3.2 Regulatory.. The regulatory category includes permitting,

zoning, and setback activities.

Cost Per Reach Plan

A. Plan Review
Personnel Costs
Direct: number hours x wage/hr
Indirect: Total direct x Indirect ratio

Other Direct Costs

Travel (cost per plan) $
Public Hearing (cost per hearing)
Printing
Equipment
Other
Total Other

B. Site Inspection and Enforcement:

Personnel Cost

Direct: number inspections x hours/inspection
x yjae/hour
Indirect: Total direct x Indirect ratio

Other Direct Costs

Travel (cost/Inst. x Inspections $
Printing
Equipment
Other
Total Other

Total Cost per Reach Plan

216

Example: For a Reach in Middlesex County

A. Plan Review:

Personnel Costs

Direct: 10 hours x $7.21 hour14 $ 72.10
Indirect: $72.10 x .7515 54.08

Other Direct Costs

Travel ($16 per plan)16 = $16.00
Public Hearing ($50 per hearing) = 50.00
Printing
Equipment
Other
Total Other Direct $ 66.00

B. Site Inspection and Envorcement:

Personnel Costs
Direct: 3 inspections18 x 3 hrs/inspection19
x $7.21/hr. $ 64.89
Indirect: $64.89 x .75 48.67

Other Direct Costs

Travel ($9 x 3)20 27.00
Printing
Equ ipment
Other
Total Other Direct 27.00

Total Cost per Reach Plan $332.74

A.3.3 Financial/Incentives. This category includes grant and

loan programs, taxation measures and insurance programs.

Costs of administering a financial or incentive program would

entail the determination of adding-on to an existing institutional

structure rather than establishment of a new program.

217

Costs Per Reach

Costs per transaction (parcel)

Grant application review and approval:
hours per application x wage/hour

Verification of request:

miles to site x 2 x rate per mile
I hour at site x ylge/hour.

Total per parcel $

Small Business Administration (SBA) financial assistance in the

coastal area was estimated to involve approximately 1-1/2 hours for

each application approval and review and one hour for site
verification plus travel time.21

Example for Middlesex County:

Grant application review and approval:

1-1/2 hours per applicant x $7.21 hour $ 10.81

Verification of request:

30 miles x 2 x .15 mile 9.00
1 hour x $7.21 hour 7.21

Total per parcel $27.02

number parcels x $27.02 = cost per reach

A second basis for these calculations is the Maryland Department

of Natural Resources - Shore Erosion Control Construction Loan Fund.

The department supervises the design and erection of shore erosion

protection devices financed by the fund. The Loan Fund is defined as:

218

"The Shore Erosion Loan Fund, administered by the Shore Erosion
Control Section of the Capital Programs Administration
(Department of Natural Resources) provides no-interest loans to
community or private property owners in need of shore protection.
The fund is maintained by annual appropriations of approximately
one million dollars by the General Assembly, and by repayment of
loans through a special real estate tax levied by the State on
private property benefiting from shore erosion control projects.
The fund establishes priorities based on the rate of erosion,
proximity of a structure to the eroding shoreline, the length of
the eroding shoreline, and the number of property owners affected
by the erosion. At the present level of funding, loans are
generally given only in cases in which existing buildings are
threatened by shore erosion. The fund designs and oversees
construction and maintenance of the projects it finances.
Perhaps more important, the Shore Erosion Control Section
provides, upon request, technical assistance to any property
owner the most appropriate method of protecting his property from
shore erosion."

That program has an overhead budget (includes everything except

funding for structures including vegetation cover) of approximately
$220,000 per year and handles approximately 40 projects per year.22 A

project is defined as a property owner request for assistance.

Cost is approximately $55,000 per project. Of course to use this

figure for our example would require us to drop the previous

calculation of cost of technical assistance, scientific analysis and

general oversight plus those type of cost which have been factored

into cost of structural implementation.

A.3.4 Data Collection/Planning/Research. This category includes

costs of activities necessary for collecting local area data,

processing that data and setting up an erosion control program.

219

Costs Per Reach

Data Collection per parcel:

number of hours x wage/hour
Translation of data per parcel:
number hours x wage/hour

Analysis of alternatives per parcel:
number hours x H@je/hour

Total direct cost per parcel $
Indirect (64% of direct)
Total cost per parcel $

number parcels x average cost per parcel total cost per reach

Example for reach in Middlesex County using actual values determined

during the study.
Data collection per parce,23
1/2 hour x $6 hr. $ 3.00
Translation of data per parce124
1/2 hour x $6 hr. 3.00
Analysis of alternatives per parce125
1/2 hour x $10 hr. -5.00

Total direct cost per parcel $ 11.00
Indirect (64% of direct) 7.04
Total cost per parcel $ 18.04

number of parcels x $18.04 = total cost per parcel

A.3.5 Education/Information. Unlike costs for the other four

categories of transaction and administrative activities, costs for

education and informational programs cannot readily be allocated on a

per reach basis. In most instances, education and information

programs would be incorporated as part of an on-going program.

Activities would include presentations, newsletters, publications, and

220

possibly activities such as deed notification. A maximum expenditure

should be established for this category.

A flat rate of $1,000 per reach is suggested for planning

purposes.

A.4 Establishing Budget Summary for Cost and Benefit Comparison

The calculated values in section A.1, section A.2, and section

A.3 were used to establish a budget summary for each reach. An

example of that budget is presented in Section 6.2.1.7. This summary

budget of costs and benefits provides all the necessary information

for comparisons of alternative management strategies.

A.4.1 Part I of Summary Budget. Benefits which accrue to

shoreland activities as outlined in section A.1 were consolidated by

erosion year groups for each reach. The benefits were based on

prevention of losses which would have occurred if erosion were to

continue unabated for each of the erosion rate years. An alternative

explanation is that benefits to be used in this column are the costs

which would be incurred if erosion continued unabated for those year

periods.

A.4.2 Part II of Summary Budget. As noted in section A.2,

several structural control options should be considered for each

reach. Costs and benefits for each option were consolidated for the

reach for each option. Also provided were estimates of the expected

years of effectiveness of the proposed measures and of the percentage

221

effectiveness of that option in controlling erosion. The potential

shoreline erosion loss prevention values from Part I must be modified

to reflect the percentage effectiveness for each option as noted under

structural controls. For instance, if the percentage effectiveness is

50 percent then only half of the potential prevention of loss value

can accrue as a benefit from implementation of the proposed structural

controls.

Technical Assistance as given here is limited to assistance for

shorline evaluation, design of structures, maintenance and field

checks. Other assistance is included under Transaction and

Administration Costs. Calculation of technical assistance costs was

explained in section A.2.

Any cost incurred due to restriction to ownership from such

non-structural measures as easements and public acquisition was

calculated on basis of current use limitations. These costs were

based on decreases in value of those uses as calculated in section

A.I. For example, if an easement or buffer zone were established,

then annual net return from agriculture production on that restricted

area was lost to the owner. He may or may not receive compensation

for the lost value. Costs or benefits resulting from changes in

access or facility use are definitely legitmate considerations but are

too varied to include in the analysis.

Regulatory actions such as zoning, permitting and setbacks may

impact value of land use and property. Costs of limitation on

222

production was based on calculated production values for the impacted

area. We assume these actions will not impact value of current

structures except by relocation costs which are discussed in the next

section of the report. Regulatory action will impact property values

particularly if an action such as a setback requirement prevents.

future building on the impacted lot. Setbacks which provide for open
space may actually increase the value of the property.26 However,

these setbacks generally range from 1001 to 2000'. Our area is more

closely related to lots of approximately 100' to 200' of depth. In

instances where a regulatory action eliminates the use of a vacant lot

for building purposes, that lot loses all its value except the $2,700

placed on unbuildable lots by the assessors.

Procedures for calculation of transaction and administration

costs were explained in section A.3. The consolidated costs per reach

were transferred to the budget summary.

A.4.3 Tart III of Summary Budget. Public acquisition costs were

based on fee simple purchase by government or some administrative

group such as a local assessment district. These costs were derived

from the calculations on property and structure present value

appraisals as discussed in section A.1. Actual acquisition cost may

be either higher or lower than the curent market appraisal. The

budget summary provides total potential cost which can be used for an

allocation of available funding based on percentage federal or

223

non-federal share as may be determined by the management strategies.
For example, one proposal is a 50-50 share of acquisition costs.27

Relocation for major structures (this analysis was limited to

dwellings) is an alternative to complete acquisition and may impose

costs on either private or public parties. A relocation cost was

calculated as explained in section A.1 for each major structure

located in an impacted area. These values must be considered in

evaluation of any combination of controls. The budget summary

provides total potential cost for relocation which can serve as a

basis for an allocation of relocation funding between federal and

non-federal cost-sharing based on selected management strategies. It

also provides for calculating cost associated with a loan program.

For example, one proposal is for 80-20 cost-share and a 5 percent loan

interest rate.28

A.4.4 Costs of Loans and Grants for Structures. Financial

incentives such as loans and grants may be available to offset cost of

control actions. Although not included in the budget summary, costs

may be distributed among private and public entities based on specific

program objectives. The Great Lakes Basin Commission in a recent

study suggests 100 percent federal grants to protect public lands,

grants for structures on a 50 federal/50 non-federal basis, and loans
to private owners at a 5 percent interest rate.29

A.4.5 Consideration of Flood Insurance Program. While the

budget summary does not contain a section for consideration of

224

insurance programs, the analysis can be used to analyze policy issues

with respect to insurance programs.

The role that the Federal Flood Insurance Program plays could be

limited to five options. The options are: 1) removing erosion from

the flood insurance program; 2) total prohibition of new construction

in erosion hazard areas; 3) setback requirements; 4) no-insurance zone

as an alternative to setback requirements; and 5) moveable structures

and buffer zone.

Employing four of the five options; i.e., 2) through 5) above,

their impact on the property, improvements and use values can be

determined in the following manner:

1. Total prohibition of new construction in erosion hazard

areas.

a. establish an erosion hazard zone by multiplying the
average useful life of a structure by the predicted
annual recession rate. FIA prefers a 67-year hazard zone
(67 year as average useful life structure)
b. limit future uses of erosion zone to "open spaces"
C. insurance at subsidized rates for existing structures

2. Setback requirements within erosion zones.
a. establish an erosion hazard zone by multiplying the
average useful life of a structure by the predicted
annual recession rate
b. setback requirements would prohibit new construction in
30-year portion of zone

3. No-insurance zones as an alternative to setback requirements.
a. establish an erosion zone by multiplying the average
useful life of a structure by the predicted annual
recession rate
b. a 30-year zone would be established in which no insurance
coverage would be provided for new construction
c. insurance available in rest of zone

225

d. does not require a setback, just no insurance available
for the 30-year zone

4. Moveable structures and buffer zone.
a. combines elements of a sinking fund (insurance rate
calculated so that at the time of loss, enough money
would have been paid into the fund to cover the
depreciated value of structure) and a 30-year
no-insurance zone concept
b. a short buffer zone would be maintained at all times and
would probably be based on a five to ten year recession
zone
c. buffer zone would recede annually and no new structures
be permitted
d. new structures in 30-year setback would be moveable and
would have to be moved when overtaken by limits of the
buffer zone
e. coverage would not be provided for losses to structures
within the buffer

The aspects of the flood insurance program could be incorporated

as the study progresses into calculations to focus on the costs and

benefits of prohibiting construction in the erosion hazard areas (10,

15, 30, and 67 year zone); limiting uses to open space; requiring a

30-year setback zone; and relocating structures.

226

FOOTNOTES

lBased on erosion rates provided *by VIMS scientist.
2Procedures For Determining Ranges of Use-Value... With 1978
suggested Use-Values, State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee,
Richmond, Virginia, September 1977.
3Armstrong and Denuyl, "An Investment Decision Model for Shore-
land Protection-and Management, "Coastal Zone Management Journal,
Vol. 3, No. 3, 1977 pp. 237-253. A study by Brown and Pollakowski
confirms the existence of this valuation difference--Brown and
Pollakowski, "Economic Evaluation of Shoreline," Discussion Paper
#75-14, Institute for Economic Research, Univ. of Washington,
November 1975.
4Subdivision Ordinance, Middlesex County, Virginia, prepared by
The Middle Peninsula Regional Planning Commission and adopted by The
Board of Supervisors of Middlesex County, Virginia, effective
September 1, 1966.
5Armstrong and Denuyl, op. cit.
Erosion/Insurance Study, by Erosion/Hazard Management Subcommittee
of the Great Lakes Basin Commission Standing Committee on Coastal
Zone Management June 1978.
Brown and Pollakowski, op. cit.
Polinski and Shavell, "Amenities and Property Values in a Model of
an Urban Area,'@ Jorunal of Public Economics, Vol. 5, 1976, pp.
119-129.

6"Wingate Appraisal Service Market Study, 1977" Report on file in
Middlesex County Commissioner of Revenue's Office.
7Brown and Pollakowski, op. cit.
Wingate Appraisal Service Market Study, op. cit.

8Use value assessment information obtained from Commissioner of
Revenue's Office for Middlesex County.
9Armstrong and Denuyl, op. cit.
10"Cost Report on Non-Structural Flood Damage Reduction Measures for
Residential Buildings Within the Baltimore District," U. S. Army
District, Baltimore, Md., IWR Pamphlet No. 4 July 1977.

227

llExcerpt from IWR Pamphlet No. 4, op. cit.
12These costs include only transactional costs, not cost of actual
purchase, reimbursement, or relocation. Estimates obtained from the
legal and right-of-way divisions of the State Highway Department.
Estimates represent an average only as each case has a degree of
variability. Court costs associated with the small number of cases
(10-20 percent) which go to trial are not included.
13Taking is likely to be found only if the regulation totally
restricts building on a parcel or has substantial economic impact
upon the property.
14Man hour costs were figured on the basis of an annual salary of
$15,000.
151ndirect cost ratio is the total of all costs considered indirect
(secretarial, supplies, utilities, fringe, etc.) multiplied by total
direct personnel costs. The .75 indirect cost ratio is based on
Middle Peninsula Planning District Commission budget.
16Estimate for Middlesex County.
17Estimated cost of one public hearing in Middlesex County.
18Constitutes one inspection at start of project, one during the
project construction and one at completion of project.
190ne hour of travel each inspection and two hours at site.
20Each inspection - 60 miles round trip at $0.15 mile.
21Telephone conversation with Mr. Lou Hodges of the SBA in
Richmond, Virginia.
22Telephone conversation with Mr. Tom Morris of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland.
23Figures for data collection costs include the costs of assembling
information on
1. property;
2. improvements; and
3. use value.
These pieces of information are transferred from the tax maps, the
parcel index for the tax maps and the individual parcel tax
assessment forms. The 30 minute per form is the time required to:
locate the parcel; determine the owner; look-up the owner's
assessment card in the file; and to copy the necessary information
from the card to the Property Survey Form.

228

24The information collected on the Property Survey Form is trans-
lated into values for:
1. the property: total market value
loss of building site
amenity value
loss of taxes
2. the improvements: dwelling
other buildings and structures
loss of taxes
3. the land use: loss of land
These values are calculated using procedures outlined in Chapter IV
2.a.
The approximate time for various calculations include:
Total time: 30 minutes per parcel
1. 100' and 200' setback and 10, 15, 30, and 67 yr. erosion
rate areas required 5 min. per parcel.
2. figuring total square footage for irregular-shaped lots,
using a digitizer (i.e., planimeter) @/10 min. per parcel
3. determining value of property per sq. ft. based on assessed
value @ 5 min. per parcel
4. transferring the data on to the property, Improvements, and
Use Value Form @ 10 min per parcel
25These costs are based on actual figures as derived for study of
reaches in Middlesex County.
26Brown and Pollakowski, op. cit.
27Erosion/Insurance Study, op. cit.
28Erosion/Insurance Study, op. cit.
29Erosion/Insurance Study, op. cit.

229

APPENDIX B

MEASURE OF FISCAL EFFORT FOR SELECTED

COASTAL LOCALITIES

B.1 Determination of Fiscal Effort for Selected Localities.

Fiscal effort.can be used to compare the ability of localities to

pay for a given erosion control program and to provide guidelines for

the distribution of limited erosion control funds among localities.

Fiscal effort as used in this study is a percentage measure of revenue

from own sources per capita dividedby revenue capacity per capita.

The following sections provide a discussion of the rationale for using

fiscal effort and then an explanation of each component of the ratio

measure.

B.1.1 Fiscal Effort. Measures of fiscal effort are used for two

primary purposes: 1) to measure the actual financing performance of a

government against its estimated financial reach, and 2) to compare

differences in relative government financial effort among localities.

In dealing with fiscal effort we are seeking to measure governments'

use of their potential financing capacity rather than to compare the

resulting burdens that fall upon people in various areas. The two are

likely to be related: in an area where governments are making

greater-than-average use of their total potential financing capacity,

the resulting burden upon local residents is likely also to be on the

high side. But this is not necessarily the case, because some taxes

and other governmental exactions can be shifted by those who pay them

231

in the first instance to someone else. For example, economists

generally believe that most sales and excise taxes collected from

producers, wholesalers or retailers are passed along to the buying

public, whether as a specific extra charge or in the form of higher

prices. But not all members of the "buying public" are residents of

the taxing jurisdiction. Thus, in a local area with a large volume of

tourist trade, heavy reliance upon sales taxes may load onto

non-resident visitors a considerable fraction of the financing of

public requirements. For such an area, one might find a comparatively

high measure of relative revenue effort, even though, thanks to this

targeting at the tourists, locally-borne tax burdens are only average

or even low.

A considerable part of the capital outlay of local governments is

financed by debt issuance. Debt financing may be viewed as one form

of governmental effort, at least a short-run alternative to the

raising of the same amount of revenue. Although debt issuance permits

the postponement of the burdens flowing immediately from taxes or fees

and other charges, it does involve a sort of sacrifice by the

jurisdiction involved, a reduction in its future borrowing power and

the acceptance of a future drain upon its resources for debt service.

A major argument for trying to take account of the borrowing component

of local financing is that this would permit the subclassification of

effort" along functional lines. On the other hand, to do that would

imply that borrowed funds can be readily interchanged with

governmental revenues, and that is not so. Bonds are usually issued

232

to finance particular capital outlays and cannot be diverted to other

purposes. Furthermore, very special problems arise in trying to

measure relative debt capacity. Accordingly, in the present study,

capacity and effort have been measured and reported mainly in terms of

revenue alone.

The formula selected for calculating fiscal effort is general

revenue from own sources per capita divided by computed revenue

capacity per capita. This procedure yields a percentage of fiscal

effort.1 This method was selected over other measures because it

provides a comprehensive picture of local effort and avoids some of

the extremes inherent in the use of other methods. For instance, two

commonly suggested measures, revenue from own sources per $100 of true

value of real estate and revenue from own sources per $100 of personal

income, as sale measures of fiscal effort were rejected. True value

of real estate per capita does not represent all locally raised

revenue and may not be a good predictor of other revenue bases.

Personal income as a measure of capacity many understate tax bases not

locally owned. Another sole measure, real estate true tax rate was

rejected because the relative importance of real estate taxes varies

among rural and urban localities. The limitations on use of these

sole measures are discussed further in the section on revenue

capacity.

Figures on percentage of fiscal effort for coastal counties and

cities in Virginia are presented in Table 7, Section 6.3.2.

233

Discussion on the two components of fiscal effort ratio revenue from

own sources and revenue capacity, are presented in the following

sections.

B.1.2 Revenue from Own Sources. Revenue from own sources is

calculated for each city and county on an annual basis by the Auditor

of Public Accouunts. That information is available in published
reports.2 General revenue from own sources includes: property taxes,
penalties and interest; local sales taxes; taxes on utility services;

motor vehicle licenses; permits, licenses and license fees; service

charge on county owned enterprises; other local taxes; revenue form

use of money and property; fines and forfeitures; and reimbursement

for services to other localities. Figures for revenue from own

sources per capita for coastal counties and cities are given in Table

7 of Section 6.3.2 of this report.

B.1.3 Revenue Capacity. Local fiscal capacity (the revenue

capacity denominator in the formula) is a measure of the ability of a

local government to obtain resources for public purposes. It is

especially important to observe that fiscal capacity involves the

financing capability of governments, rather than the economic

well-being of people. Nevertheless the two are interrelated,.because

governments depend mainly for their financing upon taxes and other

revenue sources that tap the income, transactions, or property

holdings of people. A 1962 Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental

Relations (ACIR) study found general similarity in the tax capacity

234

standing of various states whether gauged by personal income or in
terms of the yield of a "representative tax system."3 But that study

also found some differences in the results of the two measures of

individual states, and for smaller areas, a simple one-to-one

relationship is even less likely to be found. This is particularly

obvious in "tax havens" that have large industrial or commercial

installments which give thierlocal governments a relatively rich

revenue base, even though the residents may be few in number and poor

in income and property holdings. But the revenue base of local

governments near such tax havens often is less adequate than might be

expected by reference only to the income of the residents, many of

whom are employed in the haven area. The business property of the

haven area is beyond the fiscal reach of these outlying areas. There

are some communities, or even entire counties where, due to the

location of state capitols or universities, or of federal

installations, much of the local economy rests on governmental

operations. Because the local governments that serve each areas

cannot tax the public property involved, their fiscal capacity is

likely to be less than that of other areas having a similar level of

residents' personal income but a more usual mix of local economic

activity.

As the frequent lack of close correspondence between the relative

fiscal capacity of governments serving various areas and the relative

economic well-being of the residents of such areas becomes

increasingly apparent, it becomes more important to use some means of

235

measuring fiscal capacity that does not presume such a correspondence.

The approach used in this study is the result of a more recent (1971)

ACIR report, and is the basis for a State of Virginia Revenue
Resources and Economic,Commission Study (1975).4 This approach

accounts for nontax revenue as well as taxes, and rests on the

proposition that, in trying to arrive at a meaningful summary measure

or relative revenue capacity for various areas, it is best to weigh

various detailed elements of potential capacity according to their

relative contributions to the grand total of all revenues raised by

state and local governments. Whether applied at the national level or

on a with-in-state basis such a set of weights seems more likely than

any alternative-to give summary capacity estimates with which actual

revenue-raising performances can logically be compared. It provides a

reflection of the real world, rather than of some other set of assumed

circumstances.

The method used in this study for estimating fiscal capacity is

the "average effort" approach. This method gives a more balanced

picture of local fiscal capacity than a single measure. In selecting

this method, two other methods were rejected. The use of true value

of real estate per capita as the sole measure of fiscal capacity was

rejected because it does not represent all locally raised revenues,

and in many cases, it is not a good predictor of other revenue bases.

Although it is recognized that real estate is the most important

source of local revenues, accounting for 50 percent statewide, the
relative importance of real estate taxes varies.5 As a rule, the real

236

property tax tends to be relatively more important as a revenue source

in rural areas since they lack the variety of sources and commercial

revenue bases available in urban areas.

Although Virginia counties and cities are prohibited from taxing

income directly, it can be used as a general measure of ability to pay

other taxes and nontax charges. The reason personal income has been

rejected as the sole measure of fiscal capacity is that sole reliance

on income as a measure of capacity understates tax bases not locally

owned. The existence of a large public service corporation would not

be reflected by an income measure despite the fact that it would

represent a major tax base.

The method the Virginia Revenue Resource and Economic Commission

uses to compute local revenue capacity is based on the Advisory

Commission on Inter-governmental Relations (ACIR) "average effort"
approach.6 For each major tax source ACIR calculated the state's tax

base and then multiplied the base by the weighted national average

ratio of tax receipts to tax base. For their purposes, the Resource

and Economic Commission multiplied each major tax base in a locality

by the statewide average effort. For the purposes of this study, the

statewide average efforts that the Commission determined are used to

calculate the fiscal capacity per capita in each of the coastal

counties and cities of Virginia.

The true value of real estate was multiplied by $.0106, and

personal income, a proxy for non-property and non-sales taxes and

237

other revenue, was multiplied by $.0160. The number of motor vehicles

was multiplied by $27.29, as a proxy for personal property taxes. The

resulting products were added to local option sales tax collections to

obtain computed revenue which was then standardized by dividing by

population. Standardizing by resident population is a common method

of making data for different size localities comparable. However, the

population used in the denominator may not always be represented of

the population receiving full range of governmental services. Most

affected by such considerations are localities with military bases and

colleges.

Example: Middlesex County

Data:

1. True Value of Real Estate = $173,544,000
2. Personal Income = $ 31,700,000
3. Number of Motor Vehicles = $ 5,614
4. Local Option Sales Tax Collections = $ 145,780
5. Population = $ 79200

$173,544,000 X $.0106 - $1,839,566
$ 31,700,000 X $.0160 - 507,200
5,614 X $27.29 - 153,206
$2,499,972

$2,499,972 + $145,780 - $2,645,752
$2,645,752 7 7,200 = $367.00 per capita

The average fiscal capacity per capita for the coastal counties

of Virginia was $324.00 with a high in Arlington County of $485.00 per

capita and a low in Northampton County of $215.00 per capita. The

average fiscal capacity per capita for the coastal cities was $292.00

with a high in Williamsburg of $476.00 per capita and a low in

Chesapeake of $223.00 per capita. (Table BI)

238

Table Bl. Average Fiscal Capacity Per Capita
for Coastal Cities and Counties

True Value No. of Local Option Average Fiscal
County or of Personal Motor Sales Tax Capacity
City Real Estate7 Income8 Vehicles9 Collections'O Populatio 11 Per Capita
Counties ($1,000) ($1,000)

Accomack 432,059 144,800 21,374 603,800 30,900 259
Arlington 3,502,384 1,836,600 102,154 5,117,650 153,500 485
Caroline 298,107 79,500 10,403 119,380 15,900 309
Charles City 115,002 25,400 3,838 24,860 6,500 270
Chesterfield 1,740,921 727,100 81,525 2,691,140 107,700 325
Essex 173,251 36,900 6,035 348,280 7,800 377
Fairfax 11,500,334 4,569,900 373,980 16,288,830 525,500 422
Gloucester 338,264 90,400 12,798 374,080 17,000 339
Hanover 847,190 297,500 36,955 1,204,310 48,400 330
Henrico 2,886,679 1,324,900 119,597 7,557,910 173,900 360
Isle of Wight 321,839 100,400 13,522 399,060 20,400 284
James City 355,538 95,700 10,674 696,620 19,800 318
King George 177,916 56,500 6,805 112,120 9,600 322
King & Queen 117,761 29,500 4,037 24,350 6,000 309
King William 195,954 47,700 6,054 184,130 8,000 399
Lancaster 232,193 54,100 7,596 307,550 9,600 400
Mathews 163,583 38,400 5,874 124,290 8,100 325
Middlesex 173,544 31,700 5,614 145,780 7,200 367
New Kent 162,065 39,100 5,741 94,560 7,300 355
Northampton 164,347 60,200 8,875 355,870 15,400 215
Northumberland 216,598 48$400 7,349 127,430 9,600 354
Prince George 220,341 99,700 9,741 167,640 19,200 227
Prince William 1,994,200 759,300 86,070 3,940,790 128,500 308
Richmond 111,264 38,800 4,643 187,990 6,600 320
Southampton 233,001 76,800 10,699 158,900 18,500 224
Spotsylvania 469,651 119,800 19,058 863,560 24,300 341
Stafford 509,135 175,500 22,296 464,620 32,500 285
Surry 111,679 25,500 3,869 45,910 6,000 291
Westmoreland 261,314 58,200 9,603 239,080 13,400 314
York 447,584 176,900 18,209 460,870 31,600 270

Cities

Alexandria 2,113,433 1,073,600 75,187 4,474,330 108,100 427
Chesapeake 1,078,541 552,900 65,668 1,964,270 107,600 223
Colonial Heights 212,277 122,600 11,865 452,170 17,100 292
Fredericksburg 233,878 122,100 11,622 1,146,780 17,100 345
Hampton 1,262,963 748,700 70,123 3,989,140 128,900 243
Hopewell 258,132 143,000 15,389 747,760 23,600 262
Newport News 1,723,836 @851,200 78,392 3,361,160 139,900 267
Norfolk 2,242,736 1,564,400 135,999 9,333,170 276,000 224
Petersburg 394,277 260,900 24,531 1,802,180 47,000 230
Portsmouth 957,986 609,800 53,522 2,721,430 106,800 226
Richmond 2,782,383 1,790,700 126,649 10,140,240 226,400 317
Suffolk 608,403 250,400 27,136 999,560 47,300 258
Virginia Beach 3,352,094 1,390,500 @141,066 6,371,360 223,700 304
Williamsburg 223,955 87,000 7,169 1,229,930 10,900 476

239

Fiscal Capacity computations are of little use when dealt with in

an absolute sense. Since they are measurements of the potential reach

of local governments in obtaining resources, fiscal capacity

computations take on meaning only when viewed in terms of the

previously discussed fiscal effort.

240

FOOTNOTES

IFiscal Prospects and Alternatives: 1976, A Staff Report to the
Revenue Resources and Economic Commission, June 1975, p. 88.
2Report of Auditor of Public Accounts of Commonwealth of Virginia
on Comparative Cost of County Government, 1977, p. 14-15.
3Measuring the Fiscal Capacity and Effort of State and Local Areas,
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Realtions, March 1971, p. 4.
4Fiscal Prospects and Alternatives: 1976, A Staff Report to the
Revenue Resources and Economic Commission, June 1975, p. 82.

51bid.

61bid.
7Data obtained from the 1976 Virginia Assessment/Sales Ratio Study,
Department of Taxation, Commonwealth of Virginia.
80ne major problem concerning the proxy measures used is that the
income amounts involved pertain to earnings as recorded on a
.. where-earned" basis, rather than according to the place where the
income recipients reside. For most SMSA's and for individual counties
the amount involved is undoubtedly very similar to that which
would appear for income, similarly defined, on a "where-received"
basis. However, there would be a material difference in some
instances, particularly at the county level, due to commuting. The
personal income data is obtained from the Tayloe Murphy Institute
publication entitled, "Personal Income Estimates for Virginia Cities
and Counties, 1969 to 1976" by John L Knapp and David C. Hodge.
9Data obtained from the County/City Vehicle Registration Count by the
Department of Motor Vehicles, Commonwealth of Virginia.
1OData on taxable sales was obtained from the Tayloe Murphy Institute
publication entitled "Department and Specialty Store Sales in Virginia
- 1977," by Eleanor G. May. The local option sales tax is obtained by
calculating 1 percnet of the total taxable sales of the locality.
11Population data was obtained from the Report of Auditor of Public
Accounts of Commonwealth of Virginia on Comparative Costs of County
Government, 1977, and Report of Auditor of Public Accounts of
Commonwealth of Virginia on Comparative Cost of City Government, 1977.

241

APPENDIX C

Summary and Recommendations of the Erosion/Insurance Study

conducted by the Erosion/Hazard Management Subcommittee of the Great

Lakes Basin Commission Standing Committee on coastal Zone Management,

June 1978.

Study Description

This study proposes a new solution to the problem of assisting

private property owners and protecting the public interest in the

nation's shoreline erosion hazard areas. 'niis study recommends repeal

of the erosion provisions of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,

as amended (a recommendation supported by the Federal Insurance

Administration), and replacing them with a new program that would

provide financial assistance and considerable management flexibility

to coastal states for implementing state erosion plans developed

pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The

study finds federal investment in erosion hazard areas to be in the

national interest. The recommended program would not use public funds

repeatedly or indefinitely.

The Great Lakes region has for many years been concerned with the

use and management of shoreline erosion hazard areas. Responding to

these concerns, Congress addressed this issue in the 1973 amendments

to the National Flood Insurance Act. However, the ambiguous language

of the erosion provisions of the act precluded successful

implementation by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA).

243

Recognizing these problems, the erosion hazard management

subcommittee of the Great Lakes Basin Commission's Standing Committee

on Coastal Zone Management agreed to undertake the Erosion/Insurance

Study for FIA. This report on the study results from the five-month

effort by representatives of four Great Lakes states, the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the Federal Insurance Administration and Fisheries

and Environment Canada.

The purpose of the study was twofold:

(1) to develop and recommend a management program with

appropriate means of compensation for shoreline erosion hazard areas

which would be socially, economically, politically, and physically

workable; and

(2) to develop guidelines for recession rate calculation for the

Great Lakes shorelines.

The report is likewise organized into two main sections - one

describes the development and details of the recommended management

strategy which applies to the entire nation, and the second describes

the recommended guidelines for Great Lakes recession rate calculation.

The following conclusions regarding management strategies were

reached.

244

(1) The process of shoreline erosion and associated damage is not

insurable.

(2) Erosion hazards not directly related to inundation do not readily

fit within the National Flood Insurance Program developed pursuant to

the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended.

(3) The erosion provisions of the Flood Insur@nce Act of 1968, as

amended, should be replaced.

(4) There is significant national interest in and justification for

federal investment in erosion hazard areas.

(5) There should be federal interest and a federal role in supporting

the implementation of the state erosion plans developed pursuant to

the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. There is

presently not adequate support for implementation of the state erosion

plans.

(6) Federal financial assistance is needed to implement the state

erosion plans.

(7) State and/or local regulations of new development in the imminent

erosion hazard zone would be required as a condition for federal

assistance.

(8) If the state is to have a role in ensuring enforcement of the

selected management techniques, special state enabling authority may

be necessary.

245

(9) Considerable state flexibility in any erosion management program

is necessary.

(10) If structural erosion protection is used in lieu of

nonstructural controls, the devices must be designed with their

effects on the entire coastal reach in mind, with legally binding

assurances that the structures will be property installed and

maintained.

(11) Substantial technical developments in recent years have been

achieved for both recession rate calculation and design of shore

protection structures.

Recommendations

(1) The erosion hazard insurance provision (Sections 1302(g) and

1370(c)) of the National Flood Insurance of 1968, as amended, should

be repealed to eliminate the insurmountable technical and

administrative problems that have resulted since 1973 from attempts to

implement insurance program for coastal erosion.

(2) A national program should be established.to provide

financial assistance to states to implement the state erosion plans

(developed pursuant to Section 305(b)(9) of the Coastal Zone

Management Act of 1972, as amended). Flexibility must be retained at

the state level to respond to particular circumstances related to

erosion management, with implementing techniques including hazard area

identification, technical assistance, state/local regulation,

relocation, land acquisition and shore protection.

246

APPENDIX D

GUIDELINES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF EROSION RATES

(The following pages are reproduced, with modifications, from the

Erosion/Insurance Study Conducted by the Erosion/Hazard Management

Subcomittee of the Great Lakes Basin Commission Study Committee on

Coastal Zone Management, June 1978).

DEFINITIONS

Bluffline: Due to geomorphic, climatic and hydrologic conditions, the

feature which is indicative of an erosion problem is the retreat of

the bluffline. For the purpose of this report, the bluffline is

defined as the line which is the edge or crest of the segment of the

shore elevated above the beach which normally has a precipitous

incline on the waterward side. In low relief areas, it may be

necessary to use some other diagnostic shoreland feature such as the

line of permanent or stable vegetation in the backshore area for

recession rate calculations. In the following test the words

bluffline and the line of permanent or stable vegetation may be used

interchangeably. The bluffline is a desirable reference point as:

a. Identification is not affected by changing water levels.

b. It is easily recognized and located without the aid of survey

equipment.

Shoreland Manuscripts: Maps and other graphic displays of topographic

and cultural features of the coastal area.

247

Recession Rate: The rate of retreat of a bluffline over a period of

time, usually expressed in feet or meters per year.

Transect Line: The point on the bluffline where a recession rate

measurement is made.

METHODOLOGY

To establish a bluffline recession rate, it is necessary to know the

position of the bluffline at some specific point on the shore at a

specific date in history. Then the present position of the bluffline

at that point is measured and the rate of movement calculated.

Aerial Photography: Comparison between aerial photographs is a common

method of determining bluff recession. This method provides an

extensive, continuous and uniform record of bluffline location at a

reasonable economic expenditure. In many instances, aerial

photographs provide the best historic record of bluffline position

since earlier documents do not adequately reference the bluffline.

Dates of Photography: The longest time span between sets of aerial

photography of acceptable quality must be employed.

Photograph Quality: All new photography conducted to establish a

modern bluffline record should be flown to current standards of

accuracy similar to those established by the National Ocean Survey.

In addition, flights must be timed to provide the best resolution and

documentation of the bluffline positions.

248

Aerial photographic quality usually is a continuous variation of

several parameters; resolution, contrast, tilt, scale, percent of

land-water coverage, etc., which together determine whether an image

is suitable to produce an accurate recession rate measurement.

Because it is difficult to put exact limits on "low" versus "high"

quality, reliance must be placed upon the professional judgement of

the person using the photography. Generally the photography should

meet the standards specifications for aerial mapping photography

applicable at the time of photography.

Scales: The minimum contact scale of photographs to be used for

recession rate calculations should be 1:20,000. It is desirable to

use larger scale photography whenever possible to provide better

definition of the bluffline and better resolution of the control

points used to determine accuracy of scale and to compare photographs

of different dates.

Availability: Aerial photographs from as early as 1938.are available

for most of Virginia's coastal areas.

Instrumentation: The accuracy in the comparison of two sets of

photographs achievable with the Zoom Transfer Scope is the minimum

standard required. Any instrumentation which will meet or exceed ZTS

accuracy is suitable for recession rate calculations.

Ground Surveys: It has generally been found that remeasurements of

historic surveys such as historic plats do not produce accurate

249

bluffline recession rate calculations. This is because these surveys

usually do not record the position of the bluffline, referencing

instead either the water's edge or a specific elevation.

Modern subdivision mapping generally provides exact contouring

mapping. These documents, along with the measurement of distances

from monumented positions to the bluff edge, have the potential to

provide the most accurate recession rate calculations possible once

the time period covered becomes of sufficient length.

Shoreland Manuscripts: Recession rate calculation studies should take

advantage of shoreline manuscripts which accurately depict the

bluffline.

Scale: Shoreline manuscripts of a scale of 1:10,000 or larger should

be incorporated into recession rate studies if they provide desirable

time span data and are of sufficient accuracy.

Dates: All available shoreline manuscripts which meet other

requirements can be employed regardless of document dates. Exceptions

may occur in two instances:

(1) Long-term recession rates may vary from short-term rates.

In this instance, the investigators may determine the

shorter time span is more indicative of future erosion (see

the section on Time Spans in the following pages).

(2) Manuscripts produced within the time span for which aerial

photography exists should be included only if accuracy is

250

enhanced and the time span of the study is not shortened

significantly (see the section on Time Spans).

Accuracy: Care must be taken to ensure that the-bluffline drawn on a

historic shoreline manuscript is presented as an accurately placed

topograph ic feature and not merely an artistic display.

STANDARDS FOR ACCURACY

Modern Photography Mapping Standards: The following criteria should

be used for establishing specific standards for all new aerial

photography flights conducted for recession rate studies.

(1) Photography flights must be conducted during a leaves-off,

snow-and-ice-free period.

(2) Sun angle should be chosen which best illuminates the bluff

face.

(3) Sun angle must not be such as to allow sun glint

(reflectance) to wash out (over-expose) the beach-bluff

area.

(4) The percent of land-water coverage must be 50% to 60%.land

coverage.

(5) The scale of new aerial photography shall be no smaller than

1:10,000 with an optimal scale of 1:6,000 (1 in. = 500 ft.).

(6) Color photography is more desirable for bluffline

identification. It is strongly recommended that color

photography be selected at 1:10,000 scale and black and

white photography at a scale of 1:6,000 or larger.

251

Additionally the applicable standard specifications for aerial

photography and photogrammetric mapping should be applied.

Methodology for Determining Photograph Scale: Scale should be

determined for every aerial photograph using the following guidelines:

(1) The scale may be calculated by making field measurements

between clearly defined control points on the modern

photograph.

(2) The scale distance measurement should be made parallel to

the proposed recession.rate measurements to compensate for

directional variations in scale which may exist on the

aerial photograph (tilt, paper shrinkage, etc.).

(3) The type of instrumentation employed or the judgement of the

photogrammetrist may indicate that an average scale value

will provide sufficiently accurate recession rate

calculations.

Rate Spacing: There should be a minimum of five recession rate

measurements per mile of shoreline, spaced at a maximum distance of

1,000 feet. Recession rate measurements shall be taken at even closer

intervals when adjacent recession rates vary by one foot per year or

more along blufflines which have few erosion control structures and

two feet per year or more along blufflines which have few erosion

control structures and two feet per year or more along blufflines

where erosion control structures are predominant.

252

Predominance should be based upon the percentage of shoreline which

has been "hardened" by shore protection, 25% or more of shore

protection being considered the threshold. Predominance should also

be based on the effective size of structures since one large pier can

project a zone of influence for great distances along the shore.

Professional judgment will be necessary in special situations. Where

adjacent rates do fluctuate beyond acceptable values, recession rates

should be measured, if possible, at succeedingly closer intervals

until adjacent rate variation is reduced to proper levels or the rate

spacing has been reduced to a minimum of 250 feet between transect

lines.

When recession rates continue to fluctuate beyond the limits

established above and the recession rate spacing has been reduced to

250 feet or as close as possible, breakpoints between areas of

differing recession rates should be established. The location of the

breakpoint between differing recession rates should be made on the

following basis:

(1) large harbor structures

(2) river or stream mouths

(3) changes in physical characteristics

(4) erosion control structures that appear to cause anomalous

recession rates

(5) if 1-4 are not applicable, place breakpoint at the midpoint

between the two recession rates which fluctuate

significantly.

253

TIME SPANS

Period of Record: The longest period of record for which accurate

photographs and possible manuscripts exist should be employed to

determine the long-term recession rates. This period of record should

not go beyond the date of a known major shoreline change, but must be

in excess of 25 years. If for example, a harbor structure has been in

place for 30 years, the last 30 year period may be most indicative of

future erosion. A minimum period of 25 years is required to reflect

normal variations and to reduce the statistical variability of rates

based on shorter time spans. If recession rate calculations are based

on less than a 25-year period of record, the rates should be used only

in conjunction with physical characteristics by reach, other

documentation, and personal knowledge of historic erosion.

Maximum Age.of Modern Photography: Photographs over five years old

should not be used as the modern coverage.

MAPPING

Mapping Base: The mapping base to be used should be the most accurate

display available reproduced at a scale of 1:10,000.

UPDATE OF DATA

Recalculation of Rates: Recession rate studies should normally be

updated every ten years. In areas where erosion is severe (according

254

to local reports), or where property owners strongly disagree with

results, the recession rates should be restudied as needed.

Update Studies: When previous studies are updated with new

photography, the new study should be measured against the historic

photography in order to increase the time span. However, with each

new study the suitability of the historic photography must be

reevaluated by weighing the value of time spans and the quality of

historic photography.

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The longest period for which accurate data points exist should be

employed.

2. It is imperative that new color aerial photography for the entire

shore at a scale of 1:10,000 or larger be flown to the included

specifications as soon as possible.

3. It is recommended that aerial photography be updated every ten

years.

4. Ground surveys to reestablish historic land surveys should not be

used for recession rate calculation unless the bluffline has been

specifically recorded in the historic documents.

5. The establishment of ground monumented bluff positions should be

encouraged to provide.recession rate data for areas where accurate

aerial photographs are difficult to obtain, to check on the accuracy

2515

of other methodology, and to ultimately provide the ideal method of

recession rate calculation. Paired monuments should be placed 1,000

to 2,000 feet apart and 100 to 250 feet landward of the bluffline.

The paried monuments would then form a base line from which transects

to the bluffline can be made at 200-to 400-foot intervals. Periodic

remeasurement of these transects will indicate the recession rate.

The monuments should be witnessed to local features for ease in

reestablishing the measurement positions. The benefits of this

recommendation will not be fully realized until some future time.

(6) An inventory and cataloging of all Virginia shoreland manuscripts

of a scale of 1:10,000 or larger should be conducted, and the suitable

manuscripts should be incorporated into recession rate calculations.

256

APPENDIX E

PROPOSED REVISION OF ARTICLE 2.2, s. 21-11.16

(Retain as presently written)

"Declaration of Policy. The shores of the Commonwealth ......

therefore, the General Assembly hereby recognizes shore erosion as a

problem ........... in effectuating effective practical solutions

thereto."

(Add)

To this end, the General Assembly specifically authorizes the

implementation of a program of coastal erosion abatement and impact

mitigation, placed under the overall direction of the

with the advice and assistance of such other State, regional, and

local public agencies as may be concerned. Pursuant to this

authorization, the shall establish and promulgate a

timetable for the designation of coastal erosion areas within the

State, to be completed no later than 19-; for which

areas the following special provisions shall immediately apply:

1. All agencies of the State and its political subdivisions

shall work cooperatively in seeking and applying the most

suitable structural and nonstructural methods of coastal

erosion abatement and impact mitigation within critically

affected shoreline reaches. The shall be

authorized to coordinate this cooperative effort.

257

2. Financial assitance by the Commonwealth for the provision of

public services or facilities within such areas shall be

restricted to those are@s for which an erosion abatement plan

and financing element has been prepared and submitted to the

for certification, according to the

provisions of Title 15.1, Chap. 11, Art. 4, Code of 1950 as

amended.* The shall also have authority to

establish such other guidelines and criteria as may be needed

to accomplish the objectives set forth in this article.

It is the desire of the General Assembly to assure that

consideration be given to the following factors in the

provision of state financial assistance: the degree to which:

(a) a project is intended to serve intensely developed

coastal areas experiencing severe erosion impacts.

(b) a project is intended to serve areas offering

superior suitability for public access to water.

been demonstrated to be greatest in relation to

anticipated costs for a particular project.

(d) a project is intended to serve areas for which

proven erosion abatement structures applied by

shoreline reach exist, or are planned.

Refers to a proposed new section added to title 15.1 providing for
erosion abatement plans. See Section 8.5.A.

258

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

For addition to Section (Requirements for Improvements,

Reservations, and Design):

1. .1 GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS

Characteristics of the Land. Land which the Planning Commission

finds to be unsuitable for subdivision or development due to

(list of factors, to which should be added): erosion which will

be reasonably harmful to the safety, health, and general welfare

of the present or future inhabitants of and subdivision and/or

its surrounding areas, shall not be subdivided or developed

unless adequate methods are formulated by the developer and

approved by the Planning Commission in consultation with

appropriate advisory authorities. Such land shall be set aside

for uses as shall not involve such a danger.

2. .2 LOT IMPROVEMENTS

Shoreline Erosion Abatement. For subdivided properties within or

abutting designated coastal erosion hazard areas, no plat shall

receive approval until the property's existing and projected

natural erosion rates have been recorded on the plat and until

provision suitable to the administration of this Ordinance for

posting of signs upon the site to indicate these erosion rates

have been set forth by the property's subdivider.

259

In addition, prior to approval of the preliminary plat by the

Planning Commission the*subdivider shall also submit for review

and approval of the Commission an erosion abatement plan, which

shall contain the following:

1. Identification of structural and nonstructural erosion

abatement measures available to mitigate any anticipated

increases in the property's erosion rate or in hazards to

property resulting from the proposed project.

2. An assessment of anticipated environmental effects of the

proposed project and of available erosion abatement

measures.

3. An assessment of the comparative cost effectiveness of

available erosion abatement measures.

4. Identification of a single erosion abatement measure of

combination of measures most suitable for application to

mitigate any anticipated increases in the property's

erosion rate or in hazards to property resulting from the

proposed project.

The administration of this Ordinance shall determine a suitable

amount to be required of the project applicant in the form of a

performance bond or other security for performance, which shall

be sufficient to accomplish the proposed erosion abatement plan.

260

23 Permitted Uses. Sructures shall be used only for the following

purposes, and except as provided herein, in each case subject to

approval by the local planning commission in accordance with the

standards set forth in this section and the standards set forth in

Article

1. Any existing use, accessory use, or sign permitted in the

zoning district in which the premises are situated and upon

which the EH Erosion Hazard District is superimposed; except

that any use requiring new construction or alteration of

shoreline structures or land shall be subject to special

review and approval by the local planning commission in

consultation with the (State's lead agency).

2. Any conditional use permitted in the zoning district in which

the premises are situated, subject to the standards and

procedures of this Ordinance for approval of conditional uses

and subject to report by the local zoning administrator in

accordance with the purposes and standards of the EH Erosion

Hazard District.

Refers to that section dealing with site plan approval.

262

APPENDIX G

SAMPLE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS

(For addition to ordinance text):

.1 Purpose of District. The purpose of this district is to provide

for protection against property damages, hazards to safety, and

accelerated loss of shoreland resulting from alteration of physical

features within highly erodable coastal shoreline areas. It is the

purpose of the district to minimize development within such areas,

except insofar as proposed uses can be demonstrated to be compatible

with the standards set forth in this section.

.2 Application of District. The EH Erosion Hazard District is

created as a special district to be superimposed upon other districts

contained in these regulations, following a determination of the

existence of severe erosion rates and/or potential, severe erosion

impacts in specific locations by the local governing body and the

(State's lead agency). EH Erosion Hazard District boundaries are

delineated on the official zoning Districts Map and the District will

be described by a special symbol. Permissible uses, housing types,

minimum height, and accessory uses and accessory signs within the EH

District shall be determined according to regulations established for

the districts upon which the EH district is superimposed, except as

those regulations may be modified by application of special

regulations for EH Districts set forth herein.

261

3. Any special exception or variance permitted in the zoning

district in which the premises are situated, subject to the

standards and procedures of this Ordinance for approval of

special exceptions and variances and subject to report by the

local zoning administrator and specific findings of the Board

of zoning Appeals regarding the purposes and standards of the

ER Erosion Hazard District.

.4 Approval By the Local Planning Commission. Within an EH Erosion

Hazard District no building shall be constructed or altered and no

land be disturbed until after a request for approval by the local

planning commission has been made and until action by the local

planning commission to approve or deny approval of the-proposed action

has been taken. Approval shall not be granted until after a written

report has been prepared by the local zoning administrator with the

advice and assistance of and submitted to the local

planning commission. The report shall set forth the following

details:

1. Existing projected natural erosion rates of the area within

which the proposed action would be taken.

2. Projected effects upon these erosion rates resulting from the

action proposed.

3. Projected effects of local erosion upon the physical

structure or alteration planned.

263

4. A description of measures planned to mitigate the effects of

the action upon erosion rates, and/or effects of local

erosion upon the project, projected to result from the action

proposed.

The local planning commission's decision to approve or deny approval

of the proposed action shall be based upon consideration of the

report, and also upon consideration of the following:

1. The public necessity of the proposed action.

2. The public purpose or interest in land or buildings to be

protected or served.

3. The characteristics or significance of the shoreline reach

within which the action would be taken.

4. The nature and extent of physical alteration proposed and its

potential beneficial or adverse effects upon natural erosion

rates.

5. The general compatibility of the site plan; and, in the case

of installation or expansion of shoreline erosion defense

structures, the quality of design, arrangement, and materials

proposed to be used.

6. Any other factors which the local planning commission deems

to be pertinent.

In all cases the decision by the local planning commission shall be

made within days of the filing of a notification of intent by the

applicant with the local zoning administrator.

264

.5 Conditions Imposed by the Local Planning Commission. In approval

of any proposal under this section, the local planning commission may

limit such approval by such reasonable conditions as the case may

require, including, but not limited to, the specifications enumerated

in Articles for conditional uses and in Article for the Board

of Zoning Appeals. Favor shall be given to uses for which measures

designed to abate severe erosion or to mitigate its adverse effects

are proposed by the applicant, or may be negotiated by the applicant

and the local planning commission or Board of Zoning Appeals in

consultation with the (State's lead agency).

(Also for addition to Ordinance text):

Requirements for Site Plans, Content and Form. (To the listing of

factors required to be shown in preliminary and final site plans,

add):

For projects on properties within or abutting coastal erosion hazard

areas, notation of the existing and projected natural erosion rates of

the site(s), and the location, size, and projected change in natural

erosion rates expected to be produced by any existing or planned

erosion abatement structures.

265

DATE DUE

GAYLORC)JNO. 2333 PR(NTEQ 01 UA.

3 6668 14107 6721