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



                                                                                     FY '91             Final Product
                   Task 65
                                                                                                VA Coastal Resources Mgt.Program                                                                                                             VA Coat(eours Mgt. wgam

                                                                                                              12/31/92


                                               Property of CSC Library






                                    Report on the Use of Aerial Photographs for
                                     Identifying Wetland Permit Violations


                                                   Prepared by the

                                     Northern Virginia Planning District Commission




                                                    September, 1992



                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA                                                        COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                                    2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                                  CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413


                         Preparation of this document was funded by the Virginia Council on the Environment, through a grant
                         provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended and administered by the National
                                     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CRMP Grant# NA17OZ0359-01.
              QH
              76.5
               v8
              R4
              1992
 





                                                                          NVPDC September, 1992




                  REPORT ON THE USE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FOR IDENTIFYING
                                      WETLAND PERMIT VIOLATIONS,




                INTRODUCTION


                As long as individuals chose to live along the shores, development activities
                within this coastal fringe will continue to exert tremendous pressure on Virginia's
                tidal wetlands. Tidal wetlands have been protected in Virginia since the passage
                of the Wetlands Act in 1972 which requires a permit for the use or development
                of tidal wetlands. These were defined as that land contiguous to mean low water
                extending up to an elevation of one and one-half times the local mean tide range,
                and upon which is growing any of a number of wetland plant species listed in
                the Act. The Wetlands Act was amended in 1982 to include all non-vegetated
                areas between mean low water and mean high water.


                Once permits are granted, there is no requirement or suggestion in the Wetlands
                Act or in the guidelines promulgated by the Virginia Marine Resources
                Commission (VMRC) that the permits be monitored for compliance. In many
                cases, noncompliance involves 'construction of bulkeads or riprap revetment at
                alignments up to several feet channelward of the permitted alignments. In other
                cases, permittees do not dispose of dredge material in the permitted locations or
                manner, or construct boat ramps in locations other than those permitted.


                Both individually and cumulatively, wetland losses due to permit
                noncompliance are potentially significant. Because of their great and unique
                values as an ecological component of the marine environment and as a physical
                buffer for erosion, flooding and water quality control, continuing unecessary
                losses of wetland resources should be avoided.


                A prudent wetland management program should therefore include some method
                of determining compliance with permits granted. A program which grants
                permits without monitoring them for compliance has the potential to undermine
                the regulatory process by allowing unecessary wetland losses.


                                                         1






                                                                            NVPDC September, 1992





                 Fairfax and Prince William counties have wetlands boards which review and
                 permit construction activities that potentially impact tidalwetlands. Granted
                 permits often contain special conditions to minimize wetlands impacts or to
                 protect wetlands adjacent to permitted construction activities. The boards are
                 authorized to enforce both their permitting conditions and any violations of tidal
                 wetlands without a permit. Enforcement is performed through construction'site
                 inspections, stop work orders, through "after the fact" review of wetlands
                 construction activities, and through legal means.


                 The Fairfax County Wetlands Board uses two (2) staff persons from the Fairfax
                 County Office of Comprehensive Planning as their primary enforcement arm.
                 Prince William County wetlands board uses one (1) person from the Watershed
                 Management Division of the Public Works Department as its enforcement staff.
                 Neither of these enforcement staffs of the wetlands boards are the primary code
                 or permit enforcement arms for construction projects in their respective counties.


                 Neither Arlington County nor the City of Alexandria have wetlands boards. The
                 amounts of tidal wetlands in these localities, especially wetlands on privately
                 owned properties, is far smaller than in either Fairfax County or Prince William
                 County. Arlington County and Alexandria permit wetlands associated activities
                 through their normal site plan approval and construction permitting processes.
                 Permit enforcement of wetlands protection conditions are performed by their
                 construction permit enforcement departments. These full-time construction
                 inspection departments tend to be better experienced in detecting construction
                 permit violations than do the wetlands boards' support staff who perform these
                 functions as secondary duties.


                 Two other agencies, the Northern Virginia regional office of the US Army Corps
                 of Engineers and VMRC, also face similar problems with permit enforcement and
                 with  unpermitted violations of wetlands related construction permiting
                 requirements. The Corps has primary Section 404 responsibility for approval of
                 activities affecting tidal waters and/or associated tidal wetlands. The Corps has
                 a qualified inspector to check on violations of permit conditions; however     , they
                 only have one (1) person performing this task for the entire Northern Virginia


                                                           2






                                                                           NVPDC September, 1992




                 region. VMRC performs wetland permitting and inspection functions where
                 wetlands boards do not function. VMRC also has one (1) person primarily
                 responsible for agency functions in the Northern Virginia region. This person is
                 located in Newport News, however, and is not readily available to detect
                 violations.


                 Violations of tidal wetlands construction permits are difficult to police. Often
                 there are very close tolerances in permitted distance between construction
                 activities and protected wetlands. It is difficult to install and maintain tidal
                 wetlands survey points on a construction site for permit inspectors to insure that
                 construction does not encroach on protected welands.


                 However, the most difficult policing occurs when tidal watlands permits are not
                 obtained at all, and construction activities take place surreptitiously in wetlands.
                 Policing then occurs only if some interested party notices the activity and reports
                 it. Such notice usually occurs when sediment or other construction related by-
                 products are noticed in nearby waters, from the air, or by passers-by to the site.
                 These are the most difficult violations for local wetlands boards' staffs, for the
                 Corps of Engineers, and for construction inspection departments to detect.


                 Fairfax County, Prince William County, and the Corps of Engineers have had
                 tidal wetlands violations occur that were not permitted, and which were later
                 detected and reported after tidal wetlands destruction had occurred. If these
                 violations had not been reported by observers, they would never have been
                 known to have occurred. The Corps of Engineers and county wetlands boards
                 can require restoration of damaged or destroyed tidal wetlands when such
                 unpermitted activities are called to their attention, or mitigation can be required
                 to minimize the damage that has already been done, or other legal penalties can
                 also be pursued.


                 While actions are being taken by the counties that will make it harder to impact
                 tidal wetlands without a permit from a wetlands board, it will still be difficult for
                 wetlands boards to insure that no tidal wetlands destuction occurs without a
                 better method of policing for violations. The use of aerial photography and aerial


                                                           3






                                                                            NVPDC September, 1992




                 survellience are excellent methods for identification of unpermitted wetlands
                 activities. However, the budgets allocated to the county wetlands boards,
                 VMRQ, and the Corps of Enginees'regional office for enforcement activities limit
                 their access to these detection methods. NVPDC's proposed program (described
                 below) was to obtain and distribute enlarged shoreline aerial photographs twice
                 during this grant period to wetlands boards, permit enforcement staffs, VMRC
                 and the Corps of Engineers. Originally, NVPDC intended to take photographs at
                 the beginning and then at the end of the grant period to compare and attempt to
                 identify activities in wetlands areas that may not have been permitted. After
                 reviewing the options, however, it became apparent that there were two separate
                 approaches to identify nonpermited wetland violations: the first was a set of
                 high altitude aerial photographs, enlarged to a scale of 1"= 600' from the Fall
                 Line, near Georgetown, south to the Prince William County line; the second
                 approach was to take a collection of low altitude aerial photographs, flown 500
                 feet above the water along the Potomac River shoreline, and up into each of the
                 embayments. The photographs were used to identify and inspect apparent
                 wetland violations and the two approaches compared to evaluate cost
                 effectiveness, utility and replicability for use in other jurisdictions. Overall, the
                 aerial photographs have promised to be a valuable tool for identifying wetland
                 and possibly other violations, that typically otherwise go unnoticed.


                 METHODS


                 NVPDC purchased seven 52"X52" black and white photo enlargements covering
                 the shorelines of the City of Alexandria, and Fairfax and portions of Arlington
                 counties. The photographs were taken in October, 1991 and enlarged to a scale of
                 approximately 1"= 600.' Three additional color photo enlargments of Prince
                 William County's shoreline, taken June 17, 1991 were purchased separately to
                 complete the set. Copies of the enlargments were given to each locality, the
                 Corps of Engineers and NVPDC. Total cost for the set of photographs and copies
                 came to approximately $4,500.


                 There was difficulty, however, arranging another complete flight coverage of the
                 Potomac River shoreline. Because of financial limitations, we were previously


                                                           4






                                                                           NVPDC- September, 1992




                 forced to accept earlier flown aerials, at the contractor's convenience and in
                 connection with other business. To have the aerials flown specifically for
                 ourelves would have been prohibitively expensive. They said they would fly our
                 section of the Potomac River again early summer. We inquired if it was possible
                 to fly them during the spring, before leaves appeared on the trees to reduce
                 obscuration. Unfortunately, this was not possible. In fact, half-way into t        he
                 summer season, we had still'not heard from them. We inquired, but due to -slow
                 business, they did not have negatives available for us to have enlarged. They
                 suggested we call back late summer.

                 What initially seemed to be a great disappointment, soon proved to be an
                 excellent opportunity. Arangements were made with NVPDC's project manager,
                 who also happens to be a recreational pilot, to fly the Potom.       ac River from
                 National Airport south to the Prince William County line, and then up into each
                 of the embayments. Slide photographs and video tape of the project area were
                 taken 500 feet above the waterline. Clearance was subsequently requested and
                 received to fly those portions of the Potomac River shoreline lying within
                 controlled airspace: Davison Airfield at Fort Belvoir, Quantico, Naval Air Station
                 and National Airport, to complete NVPDC's aerial coverage         of privately held
                 tidal shoreline property along the Potomac River. Upon consideration, we
                 elected not to fly the small section of shoreline north of National because: 1) it is
                 entirely federally-owned property, 2) it is almost completely hardened with stone
                 riprap, and 3) the area lies within the confluence of airspace near the Pentagon,
                 prohibited areas  near the Mall and also the final approach course into National
                 Airport -- one of the busiest in the nation. Other than that, air traffic controllers
                 were suprisingly very accommodating. Maps A, B and C show the study area
                 and approximate locations fof each of the individual low altitude photographs.


                 The slides came out exceptional. They were very dear, and afforded much detail,
                 especially when focused on a large screen. Underwater structures, sediment
                 plumes and even individual trees and an occasional waterfowl were clearly
                 visible. We made sure to include some overlap between photographs in order




                                                           5











                                                              1992
                                               Low Altitude Aerial Photographs
                                                             of the
                                          Northern Uirginia Potomac Riuer Shoreline







                                                                            Map R








                                M a:p B


















                                                    MOPC




                                Preparation of these photographs was funded by the Virginia Council on the
                                Environment, through a grant provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of
                                1972, as amended and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                Administration. CRMP Grant #NA17OZO359-01.



















                              Map R















                                                                                             -ilk













                                              U-t


                                                   IA




                                                                 SIC
                                                      C,















                                   A4 1,










                                                           Map B














                             VIC,



                                       elk


                                                       JA                                     it"k

                                                                                                                    '45                    164.



                                                                                                                                iAk
                                                                                                        rs





                                                                                                                                                                           q
                                                                                                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                                                                                                     114                   low    10.



                                                                                              .4. #43
                                                                                                    1w                                             113
                                                                                                     k
                                                                                                     k












                      duH

                                                          Mr.














                                                           LC
                                                        Lr






























                                                 J.S-,




























                                                    -lot


                                                       sor.


                                                            of                                                            0






                                                                          NVPDC September, 1992




                 that the viewers could maintain their orientation. The videotape, on the other
                 hand, turned out only fair, and not nearly as useful for quickly finding specific
                 site locations, or stopping frame to examine them closely-


                 The slides were collected, copied and distributed to U.S. Army Corps, Virginia
                 Marine Resources Commission, Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS),
                 Fairfax and Prince William wetlands boards, the City of Alexandria; and the
                 Prince William Park Authority ordered a set for themselves, having reviewed the
                 originals. A single set of the 360 photographs came to less than $150 (when
                 ordered in quantities of more than 500). More significantly, we were able to fly
                 144 miles of shoreline in approximately 6 hours and at a total cost of $400. Keep
                 in mind, this included time circling to be allowed clearance into controlled
                 airspace, overlapping flights to fill gaps in coverage, and time to get equipment
                 set up, coordinate personnel and get acclimated to flight conditions. Time and
                 efficiency could easly be improved upon, given a more experienced crew and
                 previously developed routine -- resulting in additional savings.

                 Overall costs for the flight time and photograph copies distributed to the U.S.
                 Army Corps of Engineers, VMRC, Fairfax and Prince William wetlands boards
                 and the City of Alexandria, came to less than $1,000. Compared to 'the
                 approximately. $4,000 to conduct the high altitude aerial surveys , the savings
                 became immediately apparent. Also, much headway was gained and lessons
                 learned with this project prototype, towards future continuation of this approach.
                 We are truly optimistic this technique will prove extremely valuable for
                 identifying wetlands violations, as well as other environmental impacts, that
                 typically otherwise go unnoticed.


                 In the past, violations usually resulted in either voluntary restoration or more
                 frequently, submittal of an after-the-fact application for a permit. Violators were
                 usually asked to appear before the Commission or wetlands board and
                 reprimanded for their action, with the intent of producing a lasting impression
                 through public admonishment. The prospect of prosecution within the judicial
                 system was previously and remains a viable opton. Unfortunately, the inherent



                                                          10






                                                                           NVPDC September, 1992




                 problems associated with preparing a case to go to Circuit Court remains
                 unchanged.


                 Enforcement procedures within Virginia's 32 wetland boards has in the past
                 reflected the varying degrees of complexity found in each local government.
                 Figure 1 represents a generalized flowchart, by the Virginia Marine Resources
                 Commission, outlining the enforcement component incorporated into the Code
                 of Virginia regulations for subaqueous lands, tidal wetlands and sand sunes. The
                 components provide a basis from which localities can refine an enforcement
                 mechanism, which is legally complete and reflects the unique character of each
                 locality. The enforcement flowchart identifies two available paths for invoking
                 civil penalties or charges. Both paths involve identifying the presence of a
                 violation. Once a violation has been determined and documented sufficiently, a
                 Sworm. Complaint is issued, followed by a Notice to Comply. In cases where
                 restoraton is a desireable conclusion, the individual has the option of restoring an
                 area to pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, applicaton for a permit modification
                 of after-the-fact approval is necessary.


                 In the absence of complete and satisfactory restoration, anyone found in violation
                 of these Code sections is subject to either a civil penalty (Circuit Court) or to a
                 Civil Charge (local wetlands board). In Circuit Court, a judge can levy a civil
                 penalty up to $25,000 for each day of violation. The Commission and wetlands
                 boards may assess civil charges of up to $10,000 per violation, which are to be
                 paid in lieu of any appropriate civil penalty and can be assessed only with the
                 consent of the person in violation. The obvious intent of both civil penalties and
                 charges is to provide financial disincentives against violating the law, while at
                 the same time providing the impetus to resolve these issues at an administrative
                 level.


                 The adoption of financial disincentives places a burden not only on developers,
                 but also on individual wetlands boards. As briefly touched on earlier, many of
                 the problems previously associated with enforcement efforts remain today.
                 While it may prove relatively easy to determine that a bulkhead was constructed
                 without authorization, it is somewhat harder to detemine the extent of


                                                         11






                                                                                                       NWDC September, 1992




                                                Figure 1 - Enforcement Procedures






                                                                      Violation



                                     yes                         irrimirvent Dwqw or                        No,
                                                                  SWilicant Harm



                                                                                                         Notice of






                                                                                                        k-POC*M





                                                                       V-Wtb.




                                                                 Unaudvited Activity/
                                                                Permit NomCornMhLnc*



                                                                 Swam Comphdrit From
                                                                   Enforcement Officer




                              N&W-Comoarm                           Mwca 0 Cw*



                                                                                                Volunu" Restoration Permit
                                                                                                  Vlodiftca*m N*fication



                                                                    Stop Work OrcW




                                                                                                                 Noice of
                                                                                                            Pleammon Heanng


                                 Circuit Court                                                               Restowon O"ier
                                                                                                        Com
                                                                                                         F@W
















                      Source: VNMC, 1991



                                                                              12






                                                                                  NVPDC September, 1992




                  encroachment beyond that which was authorized by a particular permit. The
                  aerial photographs, and particularly, the low altitude slides are useful for
                  monitoring compliance: first of all, identifying the violation; secondly, degree of
                  non-compliance or extent of a violation; and most importantly, degree of
                  environmental impact.


                  For example, two stands of vegetated wetlands may be viewed differently
                  depending on the dominant plant species. A "group one" wetland supposedly
                  ranks higher in value than a "group five" wetland and therefore, would tend to
                  be a more significant loss even though on an areal basis, the impact might at first
                  appear relatively equal.


                  Table 1, Civil Charge Determination, has been developed t             o ensure continuity
                  between all the wetland boards as they arrive at an actual dollar amount
                  representation of the violation in question. This assessment is designed to
                  contain the flexibility necessary for each individual board to arrive at a
                  conclusion based on the specific terms of each individual violation. These
                  amounts are by no means absolute and are intended to be used as a guide rather
                  than a template. Hopefully, an existing record of the shoreline previous to the
                  violation will allow the impact to be better determined in the context of the
                  surrounding environment. Also, over time, a record of cummulative impacts
                  may be determined for future consideration.



                                          Table 1 - Civil Charge Determination

                                                     Significant     $5,000     $7,500     $10,000

                   Environmental Impact                Moderate      $1,500     $3,000       $4,500

                                                        Minimal        $500     -$1,000      $1,600

                                                                      Minor    Moderate       Major

                                                     Relative Degree of Deviation or Non-compliance



                  Source: VMRC, 1991



                                                               13






                                                                              NVPDC September, 1992





                 RESULTS


                 According to correspondence and conversations with the U.S. Army Corps,
                 VMRC, Prince William and Fairfax wetland boards, they have all been very
                 pleased to have received both the high and low altitude aerial photographs.
                 According to the U.S. Army Corps, they are "amazed at their clarity and utility."
                 They have identified three areas of concern already, but since these cases may be
                 the subject of judicial review, they are not at liberty to discuss details at this time.
                 They will be checking these areas in the near future to determine the extent of
                 any violations. There are two other existing violations that show up in the
                 photos, and also must remain confidential. For one of the violations they did not
                 have an "after" photo, so these pictures may be used in court to dramatically
                 show the extent of the violation. They have also received a complaint near
                 National Airport and staff is reviewing the photos to see if there is a legitimate
                 problem.


                 According to the counties, Prince William County did not have very many
                 permitted activities last year, probably due to the recession. Also most violations
                 are observed by board members, most of whom live along the water. The
                 chairman said the photographs were' very useful and that               they would be
                 presented to the board. The Prince William County wetlands board has long
                 desired better aerial photos, but has not had funds for their aquisition. The
                 photos that are available to the board through county agencies have limitations.
                 These relatively smaller-scale photographs are only taken in the winter, and not
                 every year. Low altitude photographs, on the otherhand, 500 feet above the
                 water, taken after and during the growing season would be. most helpful in
                 finding and proving wetland violations.


                 Although the primary intent of this investigation was to aid federal, state and
                 local governments in detecting violations, there appears through conversation to
                 be many other beneficial uses for the photographs. According to the U.S. Army
                 Corps, their usefulness for overall project review has become clearly evident.
                 The new marina at Leesylvania State park is a good example of compliance
                 monitoring that can be done from the photographs. It has been a simple task for


                                                            14






                                                                          NVPDC September, 1992




                 them to compare the work that has been completed with the work that was
                 authorized under their permit, thus saving them considerable effort for their
                 manditory permit review and compliance inspections throughout these counties.


                 Another example of the usefulness of the photos is in the project review of Prince
                 William County's proposal to construct four stormwater management ponds in
                 Powell's Creek. One of the photos was put on display at a recent seminar to
                 discuss the issues surrounding their project. They said it was extremely helpful
                 to be able to show people from all over the state what the area looks like, without
                 having to arrange a field visit. The high altitude photographs provide a birds-
                 eye-view of the whole valley, which is crucial to understanding the land use and
                 positioning concerns during site evaluation.


                 They said they would also be working with the Topographic Engineering Center
                 (TEC), at Fort Belvoir, to develop additional methods of photo-interpretation.
                 They have the ability to digitize images, compare images from, different years
                 and show the changes that occur over time.


                 Overall, the potential benefits for these photos include: better coverage and
                 surveillance of Norhtern Virginia, verification of authorized and unauthorized
                 activities, legal documentation of violations, better overall perspective of the
                 areas under permit review, and reduced field time.


                 There also appears to be important applications beyond tidal boundaries. Aerial
                 photographs have great utility for reviewing activities in both nontidal as well as
                 tidal wetlands. Although the regulations affecting those nontidal resources are
                 different than the tidal wetland regulations, the responsibility is shared by the
                 U.S. Army Corps, Virginia State Water Control Board and the localities involved
                 with the Chesapeake Bay regulations.


                 Other sections of these county governments might also be interested in
                 compliance with soil and erosion conditions. Since the problems that affect the
                 Chesapeake Bay begin in the headwaters of the tributaries that flow into the Bay,
                 it would be extremely useful to be able to detect disturbances on a larger


                                                         15






                                                                           NVPDC September, 1992




                 watershed basis, that is only possible with an expanded view of the terrain
                 offerred by aerial photographs.


                 RECOMMENDATIONS


                 Aerial photographs are clearly proven to be a useful technique for identifying
                 wetland permit violations, as well as a whole host of potentially other
                 environmental monitoring and research applications. Yet, which technique is
                 best: the high or low altitude photographs? Although both are useful under
                 different circumstances, some important insights have been drawn below, that
                 best suits the unique damands of local governments.


                 First of all, we considered cost. From our experiencess, low altitude photographs
                 cost considerably less: approximately 150 miles of Potomac River shoreline and
                 embayments were flown in six and one-half hours, and cost less than $500. This
                 was a first-trial event, an experienced crew with a pre-established routine could
                 accomplish the task in possibly half the time. We were also faced with airspace
                 restrictions around Davision Airfield at Fort Belvoir, Quantico Marine Base and
                 National Airport, which required clearance to enter. Although air traffic
                 controllers were very accommodating, we were often required to circle as they
                 worked us into the traffic pattern for that day. The total cost, including one set of
                 original photographs and three sets of 360 developed photographic slides, came
                 to less than $1,000.


                 Total cost for the high altitude photographs, on the other hand, came close.to
                 $4,500. This included ten original 52"X52" photo-enlargements of the Potomac
                 River shoreline, at a scale 1"= 6001' and only two sets of copies.


                 Second, we considered the detail between the high altitude photo-enlargments
                 and the low altitude slides. According to representatives of the various
                 permitting agencies, the scale for the high altitude photo-enlargements was still
                 not large enough to clearly destinguish single lot violations, unless they were
                 significant. Permit violations, often measured in single feet, cannot always easily
                 be distinguished at 1"= 600' scale. Also, we often found shorelines obscurred by


                                                          16






                                                                           NVPDC September, 1992




                 tree cover in the sumer, shadows and SAV (which is dark), making the shoreline
                 harder to identify, and common on the high altitude aerial photo-enlargements.
                 In addition, the high altitude photographs became blurred as the scale is
                 enlarged, and their large size made them physically inconvenient to manipulate
                 and store.
                 The low altitude slides, on the other hand, taken 500 feet above the water, came
                 out exceptionally clear. Also, the photographs were taken at an angle oblique to
                 the shoreline, thereby eliminating the problems associated with tree cover.
                 Although scale varied depending on the angle and altitude of the photographs,
                 we found that the photographs could be greatly enlarged simply by focusing
                 them on a large projection screen. We were easily able to identify individual
                 trees and even an occasional waterfowl. Even though the shots were oblique,
                 distances could still be established by comparing them to fixed reference points,
                 like buildings and similar structures. We found that construction sites, disturbed
                 soils and even sediment plumes in the water were easily identified.


                 More important, we found the low altitude aerial photographs could be taken
                 anywhere and at anytime; unlike the high altitude photo-enlargements which
                 must be reproduced from existing negatives from someone else's previously
                 contracted flight. In this respect, the low altitude photographs offered far greater
                 flexibility. In fact, we waited until late summer for a flight they expected to
                 conduct early spring - which even then never occurred. Low altitude flights
                 were only constrained by weather, and we found that our response time for fair
                 weather and getting into the air was within hours. Also, considering we asked
                 the high altitude aerial contractor if we could receive photographs with the
                 leaves off sometime early spring (and were denied), the increased flexibility
                 exhibited for low altitude photographic missions shows much greater promise.
                 This also does not preclude the fact that we could have just as easily conducted
                 the flight from 10,000 feet, but chose to remain low for better detail. Other
                 investigations may require a larger watershed view, which could easily be
                 accommodated and at less cost.


                 Finally, we considered how easily the approaches could be repeated for other
                 jurisdictions. Ignore for the moment that the high altitude photo-enlargements


                                                          17






                                                                            NV`PDC September, 1992




                 suffer greatly in terms of cost, flexibility and detail; low altitude photographic
                 missions can easily be conducted by other jurisdictions at minimal effort. There
                 are also economies of scale if one jurisdiction chooses to share its products with
                 other localities. For instance, one flight can generate many copies of photographs
                 for use by the various permitting authorities. Also, two different projects could
                 be accomplished in tandem, thus saving the often substantial and largely
                 unproductive costs of simply flying to and from the airport. We found that the
                 field based operator (FBO) at any airport will gladly provide a 4-seat airplane
                 and instruction-certified pilot for an average $75/hour. If one were to ask
                 around, there are also many recreational pilots who will fly for less - simply to
                 build airtime. The typical 4-seat aircraft will easily accommodate 3
                 photographers. A 2-seat aircraft is slighlty less expensive, but will accommodate
                 only a single photographer and some persons may feel somewhat claustrophobic.
                 We inquired into using a helicopter, but this was prohibitively expensive, and
                 really nothing gained that cannot also be accomplished by a fixed-wing aircraft.


                 This approach can easily be replicated by other jurisdictions. The only
                 inconvenience was probably obtaining clearance through controlled airspace.
                 National Airport is one of a handful of Terminal Controlled Areas (TCAs)
                 established at the busiest airports throughout the United States. Restrictions to
                 flight through these areas are established to separate high densities of aircraft,
                 and traffic control is basically left to the descretion of the air traffic controller.
                 We called them ahead of time and described our intentions, and actually found
                 them to be tremendously helpful upon initial contact, once we were in the air.
                 After being cleared into the traffic pattern, we were easily able to accomplish our
                 objectives.


                 Certain military areas, on the other hand, may not be as accommodating.
                 Restricted areas over sections of the Potomac River near Dalhgren, Virginia and
                 airspace restrictions extending into the Northern Neck, from Patuxent Naval Air
                 Station in Maryland, contain hazardous military activity. Controlled areas
                 surrounding the cities of Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia are far less hazardous.
                 Clearance can usually easily be obtained by contacting the appropriate air traffic
                 controller with a request. All pilots know where these areas exist, the extent of


                                                           18






                                                                           NVPDC September, 1992




                 limitations to flight, and who to contact. Every other section of the state may be
                 flown relatively freely. Pilots will gladly describe which activities are permitted
                 where.


                 One other important note, we found that the photographer would often become
                 queasy after extended periods of time looking through the camera. This is the
                 result of vertigo accompanying loss of visual reference with the horizon and the
                 movement of the aircraft through all three axes of motion. Different people are
                 affected differently. One remedy is to focus on a fixed object outside the aircraft,
                 like the horizon, and everything should begin to settle down. This should be
                 conducted periodically throughout the flight, as needed, to keep the
                 photographer from feeling ill.


                 CONCLUSION


                 Even though the stage has been set, it is still much too soon to gauge the future
                 success this approach will have for identifying and prosecuting wetland permit
                 violations. Nonetheless, initial results have come back tremendously positive.
                 Already there have been sites identified that are now facing legal action.
                 However, it will take time for this technique to become accepted and proven
                 above other methods. As more sites are identified and action taken, word will
                 get out and people may be less likely to run the risk of being caught violating
                 state and federal wetland laws. People have to become accustomed to using this
                 approach and to explore what appears to be many other added useful benefits.


                 Typically, the low altitude aerial photographic slides have proven themselves
                 much more beneficial than the high altitude photo-enlargements in terms of
                 detail, flexibility for use and especially cost. The low altitude photographs save
                 much field time for agencies like the U.S. Army Corps, VRMC, SEAS and local
                 wetland boards and planning departments, who have limited staff and often
                 headquartered many miles distant. For example, in Prince William County, we
                 were able to scan the entire shoreline in as little as fifteen minutes, stopping
                 occasionally to investigate sites seeming suspect.



                                                          19






                                                                            NVPDC September, 1992




                 We found that 155 miles of shoreline can be flown (Prince William, and Fairfax
                 counties and the City of Alexandria) and a single set of original photographs
                 developed for about $500. This small additional cost could easily be incorporated
                 into existing fees presently charged for issuing permits, and used for monitoring
                 compliance. The cost savings in personnel field time alone justifies the expense.
                 In terms of seasonal availability, low altitude aerial photos are available year-
                 round, given favorable weather conditions. There was mixed feling between the
                 respondents whether summer photos were better than early spr       ing. The answer
                 hinges on ones objectives: surner photos are excellent for highlighting vegetation
                 types, useful for delineating wetlands, and distribution of submerged aquatic
                 vegetation (SAW However, tree vegetation can hide construction activity and
                 impacts along the shoreline; therefore, investigations along these lines are best
                 carried out before leaf-out.


                 Finally, low altitude aerial photographs exhibit a wide range of other uses easily
                 available to local jurisdictions: they may be used to document and monitor
                 compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act along designated resource
                 protection ares (RPAs); they are useful for identifying wetland boundaries by
                 changes in vegetation types, and they are useful for researching shore erosion
                 and distribution of SAV. We were able to distinguish individual trees,
                 submerged structures, and sediment plumes from construction activities became
                 clearly evident. The slides serve a very useful historical record of existing
                 conditions and can be used possibly for determining future cummulative
                 impacts. They are also easy to store. We hope to determine GIS application for
                 photographs taken at higher altitudes that are planimetric with the earth's
                 surface. Finally, they serve as an exceptional legal tool for establishing the
                 impacts of permit violations on the surounding natural environment.


                 It is really too soon to estimate the success of this program until it has been given
                 a chance for people to grow accustomed to using the approach, and explore the
                 many associated and added benefits. Nonetheless, such excellent coverage, at
                 such a reasonable cost opens up a whole range of opportunities to satisfy the
                 special needs of local governments in protecting these valuable areas. NVPDC



                                                          20






                                                                      NVPDC September, 1992




               will continue to assist its local jurisdictions in examining these new and exciting
               opportunities.










































                                                      21






                                                                      NVPDC September, 1992





                                                REFERENCES


                1). Bradshaw, Julie G., 1991. Coastal Resources and the Permit Process-
                Definitions and LMLisdictions. Technical Report No. 91-2, February 1991 of the
                Virginia Institute of Marine Science.


                2). Bradshaw, Julie G., 1990. Monitoring CoMpliance With Permits Granted By
                Local Wetlands Boards. Technical Report No. 90-A, August 1990 of the Virginia
                Institute of Marine Science.


                3). Priest, Walter I., et al., 1990. Cumulative !=acts of Shoreline Construction
                Activijy on tidal Wetlands in Virginia Technical Report.No. 90-3, August 1990 of
                the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.


                4). Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, December 1991. Virgjnj
                Wetlands: A Planning and Regglatory Perspective


                5). Rosenber& Edwin L., 1992. A Local Board's Exl2erience with Civil Charges
                and Penalties. Vol. V11, No. 1, Spring 1992 of The Virginia Wetlands Report.


                6). Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 1991. A Review of Current
                Enforcement Procedures in Light of Recent Chan= to Title 62.1 of the Code
                Virginia As contained in the Virginia Wetland Management Handbook by the
                Virginia Institute of Marine Science, September 1991.













                                                      22










               


                                               RIZED DEVELOPMENT SITE
        PLEASE CALL RIVER COUNTY AT 296-6600
        RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA
        AUTHODRIZED

        WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS                                                                                                                                                                                         
Preparation of this sign was funded by the Virginia Council on the Environment, through a grant provided by the Coast

al Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended and admistered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration CRMP Grant
Na1702359-01


































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



















         HELP PROTECT & CARE FOR THIS AREA

                           heWawm of tho s*n um ftWed by ft VnWm Cow& cm *& &mi=nmt, Oro* a pad pw%Ued by ft ComW Z"
                         Mw"mmt Act of 197Z as anubded and wWUz@ by the Nadamd OcewAc and Awmpheric Admkdstmftm aMW Crad
                                                                  NA17aM35M.













           RESOURCE                                                        PROTECTION AREA
           HELP. PROTECT                                                    & CARE FOR THIS, SITE

                                    prepwation a tha sign was funded by the Virginia Council an ate Fovircaunent, through a grant provided by the Constal Zone
                                 Management Act of 197Z as amended and administered by the National Otannic and Atmospheric Administratiom CRNFGrant#
                                                                                     NA17MM35M.
















  ,SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDARY
         HELP PROTECT AND CARE FOR THIS AREA
                                Prepw&on of this sip was fi;mded by &a Virginia Council on-the Ermironment, duough a grant promed by the Coastal Zone
                             Management Act of 197Z as amended and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CRW Grant
                                                                                  NA17OZO359-01.
















                 WETLAND 
         SENSITIVE AREA BOUNDARY
         PLEASE CALL RIVER COUNTY AT 296-6600
          




            


         

                             WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS
                              Preparation of this sign was funded by the Virginia Council on the Environment,through a grant provided
by the Coastal Zone Management jAct of 1972, as amended and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CRMP
Grant NA1702n359-01.,
 









      WETLAND
       DEVELOPMENT SITE
 HELP PROTECT & CARE FOR THIS AREA
     Preparation of this sign was funded by the Virginia Council on the Environment,through a grant provided by the Coasal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.CRMP Grant 
NA17020359-01





                                                                                                                                                                                    A_tE PXIEI@BEIRS
                                                                                                                                                                         SIDNEY H. CAMDEN
                                                                                                              _ %
                                                                                                                                                                         ASSOC[


                                                                                                                                                                         Eastville, Virginia
                                                                                                                                                                         GEORGE S. FORREST
                                                                                                                                                                         Poquoson, Virginia
                                                                                                                                                                         JOHN W. FREEMAN. SR.
                                                                                                                                                                         Hampton,    Virginia
            WILLIAM A. PRUM                                                                                                                                              TIMOTHY G HAYES
            Commissioner                               COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA                                                                                          Richmond   . V@irginia
            ROBERT D. CRAFT                                                                                                                                              WILLIAM A. HUDNALL
            Ch,el, Administration and    Finance                                                                                                                         Heathsville, Virginia
            ROBERT W. GRABB                                              Marine Resources Commission                                                                     DONALD L. LIVERMAN, SR.
            Chief, Habitat Management                                                           P. 0. Box 756                                                            Virginia Beach, Virginia
            ROBERT J. MARKLAND                                                                                                                                           PETER W. ROWE
            Chief, Law Enforcement                                                     2600 Washington Avenue                                                            Chesapeake, Virginia
            JACK G. TRAVELSTEAD                                                                                                                                          JANE C. WEBB
            Chief, Fisheries Management                                        Newport News, Virginia 23607-0756                                                         Newport News, Virginia
                                                                                                       September 8, 1992


                          Mr. Michael Kakuska
                          Coastal Resources Manager
                          Northern Virginia Planning
                             District commission
                          7535 Little River Turnpike
                          Suite 100
                          Annandale, VA 22003

                          Dear Mike:


                                        Thanks for the slides! A few of us sat in on the "tour of
                          the Potomac River" and were impressed by the amount of coverage
                          and detail they provided. It was also interesting for some of
                          our other engineers who used to work the Northern Virginia area.
                          to see the change in the shoreline and the outcome of previously
                          permitted projects. You must have had calm, clear weather to get
                          such good shots.

                                        As far as using the slides for identifying possible
                          violations, about the only suggestion I would have is to make
                          available the datel time and tidal stage that a particular set of
                          photos were taken in order to give a better idea of
                          jurisdictional areas. If you fly this again, a date-back gadget
                          for the camera may be a worthwhile investment.

                                        Thanks again and let us know if we can be of service in the
                          future.


                                                                                                       Sinc rel



                                                                                                       i         M. Woodward
                          JMW/kmh                                                                      Environmental Engineer
                                                                                                         Ymr



 -1             Telephone (804) 247-2200 (804) 247-2292 V/TDD Information and Emergency Hotline 1-800-541-4646 V/TDD



















                                                                                               DATE DUE












                                                                                                                                                                                                             0











                                                                             GAYLORD No. 2333                              PRINTED I U.SA















                                                                                  13 6 68 14107 5350
                                                                                        6