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


                                                           Virginia Wetlands
                                                               Management
                                                                  Handbook



                                                                      Prepared by

                                                                  Wetlands Program
                                                           Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                                                            The College of William and Mary


                                                                 Thomas A. Barnard, Jr
                                                                        Editor
























                                                                                Program
                                                                    QH
                                                                    76.5
                                                                     v8
                                                                    V57
                                                                    1991











                                                                                                                                                     T, I S k16


                                                                                                                                                     Final Product

                         Virginia Wetlands Management Handbook



                                                                                                                                                 Prepared by
                                                                                @310 VZ",
                                                                                                                                    Wetlands Program
                                                                                                      Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                                                                                                            The College of William and Mary
                                                                                           A"




                                                                                                                          Thomas A. Barnard, Jr. - Editor

                                                                                tA









                                                                                                                     71







                                  Virginia Wetlands
                                        Management
                                            Handbook
      U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
      COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
      2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
      CHARLESTON    SC 29405-2413                  Prepared by

                                              Wetlands Program
                                       Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                                          College of William and Mary


                                             Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.
                                                      Editor



                                                       Property of CSC Library




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













                                                         Program







                                              INTRODUCTION


                     This handbook has been compiled and edited for the purpose of serving as a standardized,
                     ready reference for Virginia wetlands board members and the staff persons who support the
                     boards' volunteer efforts. The handbook contains up-to-date copies of laws, guidelines, policies,
                     and informational statements such as Attorneys' General opinions pertinent to wetlands and
                     dune management in Virginia. In addition, technical reports and advisories published and dis-
                     tributed by the Wetlands Program of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of Wil-
                     liam and Mary are included. Beyond these staples of Virginia coastal management, discussions
                     of the permit process and the respective roles of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
                     and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science are illuminated. This latter information should be
                     especially helpful to new appointees who wish to familiarize themselves with not only their
                     specific roles as wetland and dune managers, but also with the overall shoreline management
                     process within which the local wetlands boards play an integral role.


                     One of the primary motivations behind the production of this handbook is the need to institu-
                     tionalize the experience and technical base accumulated during the 19-year operation of the
                     wetlands program, given the necessary turnover involved with a decentralized volunteer
                     management system. The handbook is also designed to be constantly updated and revised. We
                     urge each person who is issued one of these volumes to aid in keeping the handbook
                     up-to-date by adding all new documents or reports to the appropriate notebook sec-
                     tion as they are issued.


                     These manuals are being provided to the localities and are intended to be assigned to each staff
                     and board member position. The handbook is to be handed down to his or her successor as each
                     board member or staff person leaves office. Keeping the handbook updated is of great con-
                     sequence given the importance of providing accurate and complete resource
                     materials to new board appointees as soon as they assume their positions on the
                     regulatory body.








                                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


                    Cover Photograph-Tbe picture of the wetlands, dunes and old Coast Guard station on Cedar Is-
                    land, Accomack County, was taken by Mr. Walter I. Priest, III, VIMS Wetlands Program. The
                    photograph embodies coastal management by depicting the changing face of the shoreline, wet-
                    lands and dunes along with man's presence and his attempts to control the natural system.


                    The following persons are gratefully acknowledged for their individual contributions, without
                    which this handbook would not be possible:


                    Mr. Charles Dean and members of the Stafford County Wetlands Board.


                    Mr. Bryan David, Environmental Planner, Isle of Wight County.


                    Mr. Kenny Eades, Zoning Administrator, Northumberland County.


                    Mr. Robert Grabb and his staff in the Habitat Management Division, Virginia Marine Resour-
                    ces Commission.


                    Mr. C. Scott Hardaway, VIMS Division of Geological and Benthic Oceanography.


                    Ms. Kay Stubblefield and Ms. Sylvia Motley, VIMS APRC.


                    Ms. Ruth Hershner and Ms. Janet Walker, VIMS Publication Center.


                    Dr. Carl Hershner and members of the Wetlands Program of the Virginia Institute of Marine
                    Science, College of William and Mary: Ms. Julie Bradshaw, Mr. Kirk Havens, Ms. Amy Hogge,
                    Ms. Judy Hudgins, Ms. Pam Mason, Mr. Walter Priest, Dr. Gene Silberborn, Mr. Lyle Varnell,
                    Ms. Amy West and Ms. Maryann Wohlgemuth.







                                                       CONTENTS


                       Introduction


                       Acknowledgements


                       Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times


                       Wetlands Guidelines


                       Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/Beaches Guidelines


                       Wetlands Mitigation- Compensation Policy


                       Marina Information and Guidelines


                             Criteria for the Siting of Marinas or Community Facilities for Boat Mooring


                       VIMS Wetlands Program Technical Reports


                             90-1   Animals of the Intertidal Sand and Mud Flats
                             90-3   Cumulative impacts of Shoreline Construction Activity on Tidal Wetlands
                                    in Virginia
                             90-5   Tidal Wetland Values
                             90-7   Compensatory Mitigation Within the Tidal Wetlands of Virginia
                             90-A   Monitoring of Compliance With Permits Granted by Local Wetlands Boards
                             91-4   Primary Producers and Decomposers of Intertidal Flats
                             9 1-A  Nontidal Wetland Functions and Values


                       VIMS Wetlands Program Plant Series


                             90-2   Saltmarsh Cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora
                             90-4   Sal tmeadow Hay, Spartina patens
                             90-6   Arrow Arum, Peltandra virginica
                             91-1   Reed Grass, Phragmites australis
                             91-3   Arrowhead, Sagittaria latifolia
                             91-5   Pickerelweed, Pontederia cordata
                             91-7   Red Maple, Acer rubrum
                             91-9   Marsh Hibiscus, Hibiscus moscheutos
                             91-11  Sweet Bay, Magnolia virginiana











                 The Permit Process


                      Coastal Resources and the Permit Process: Definitions and Jurisdictions. VIMS Technical
                      Report 91-2


                      The Role of VIMS in the Permit Process


                      Virginia Marine Resources Commission Role


                 Attorney General and VMRC Advice


                      Official Attorney General Opinions on Matters Related to Wetlands and Dunes Issues


                      A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures in Light of Recent Changes to Title 62.1
                      of the Code of Virginia


                      General Permit VGP #2 (Involves groin permits and local wetlands boards)


                      Criteria for the Placement of Sandy Dredged Material Along Beaches in the
                      Commonwealth


                      Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
                      and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission for the Implementation of a
                      Certificate of Compliance with Norfolk District's Regional Permit 90-17


                 Shoreline Erosion Technical Guidance


                 Additional Reading


                      Suggested Readings List
                      Virginia Wetlands Historical Summary
                      Informal Suggestions for Conducting a Public Hearing








                               Local Wetland Board Contacts


                                        And Meeting Times





                        Accomack County Wetlands Board

                                 Contact Person:       C. M. Powell, Secretary
                                                       Accomack County Wetlands Board
                                                       County Office Building
                                                       Accomac, Virginia 23301


                                 Telephone Number:     (804) 787-5721
                                 Fax Number.           (804) 787-2468


                                 Meeting Time:         4th Thursday





                        Charles City County Wetlands Board

                                 Contact Person:       Fred A. Darden
                                                       County Administrator
                                                       Charles City County
                                                       P.O. Box 128
                                                       Charles City, Virginia 23030


                                 Telephone Number:     (804) 829-2401 ext. 201
                                 Fax Number:           (804) 829-5819


                                 Meeting Time:         As Needed






   49'






             Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times



                    Chesapeake Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:           John Mng
                                                        Chesapeake Wetlands Board
                                                        Department of Planning
                                                        P.O. Box 15225
                                                        Chesapeake, Virginia 23320


                              Telephone Number:         (804) 547-6176
                              Fax Number:               (804) 436-8356


                              Meeting Time:             3rd Wednesday



                    City of Colonial Heights Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:           Vicky Minetree
                                                        Office of City Planner
                                                        1507 Boulevard
                                                        Colonial Heights, Virginia 23834


                              Telephone Number:         (804) 520-9275
                              Fax Number:               (804) 520-9338


                              Meeting Time:             As Needed



                    Essex County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:           Linda Lumpkin
                                                        Assistant to County Administrator
                                                        Essex County Bd. of Supervisors
                                                        P.O. Box 1079
                                                        Tappahannock, Virginia 22560


                              Telephone Number:         (804) 443-4331
                              Fax Number:               (804) 443-4157


                              Meeting Time:             3rd Thursday






             2






                                                      Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting nmes



                        Fairfax County Wetlands Board

                                 Contact Person:       Paula Stouder
                                                       Staff Coordinator
                                                       Fairfax County Wetlands Board
                                                       Office of Comprehensive Planning
                                                       Eighth Floor Centerpointe Bldg.
                                                       4050 Legato Road
                                                       Fairfax, Virginia 22033


                                 Telephone Number:     (703) 246-1332 or (703) 246-1382
                                 Fax Number:           (703) 273-5089


                                 Meeting Time:         1st Wednesday



                        Fredericksburg Wetlands Board

                                 Contact Person:       D. R. Skinker
                                                       City Wetlands Board
                                                       1818 Charles Street
                                                       Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401


                                 Telephone Number:     (703) 372-1010
                                 Fax Number:           (703) 372-1158


                                 Meeting Time:         4th Thursday at 7:30 P.M.



                        Gloucester County Wetlands Board

                                 Contact Person:       Jean McFarland
                                                       Gloucester County Wetlands Board
                                                       P.O. Box 329
                                                       Gloucester, Virginia 23061


                                 Telephone Number:     (804) 693-4040
                                 Fax Number:           (at the library) (804) 693-1477


                                 Meeting Time:         2nd Wednesday





                                                                                                3






             Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times



                     Hampton Wetlands Board

                               Contact Person:          Patricia Thomas
                                                        Planning Department
                                                        22 Lincoln Street
                                                        Hampton, Virginia 23669


                               Telephone Number:        (804) 727-6142
                               Fax Number:              (804) 727-6895


                               Meeting Time:            4tb Friday



                     Hopewell Wetlands Board

                               Contact Person:          Milton Martin, Secretary
                                                        Hopewell Wetlands Board
                                                        Department of Development
                                                        300 North Main Street
                                                        Hopewell, Virginia 23860


                               Telephone Number:        (804) 541-2267
                               Fax Number:              none


                               Meeting Time:            As Needed



                     Isle Of Wight Wetlands Board

                               Contact Person:          Sandy Whitley
                                                        Dept. of Community Development
                                                        Secretary, Local Wetlands Board
                                                        Isle of Wight Courthouse
                                                        Isle of Wight, Virginia 23397


                               Telephone Number:        (804) 357-3191
                               Fax Number:              (at courthouse building) (804) 357-9171


                               Meeting Time:            3rd Monday or As Needed






             4






                                                              Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting YYmes



                           James City County Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          Carolyn A. Murphy
                                                               Code Compliance Officer
                                                               James City County Wetlands Board
                                                               P.O. Box JC
                                                               Williamsburg, Virginia 23187


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 253-6622
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 253-6663


                                      Meeting Time:            1st Wednesday



                           King George Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          Rob Price
                                                               Zoning Administrator
                                                               P.O. Box 246
                                                               King George, Virginia 22485


                                      Telephone Number:        (703) 775-7111
                                      Fax Number:              (703) 775-5248


                                      Meeting Time:            As Needed



                            King William County Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          David Whitlow
                                                               Mng William County Wetlands Board
                                                               P.O. Box 215
                                                               Mng William, Virginia 23086


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 769-4927
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 769-4964


                                      Meeting Time:            2nd Tuesday







                                                                                                              5






            Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times



                   Lancaster County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:          Gil Unangst
                                                       P.O. Box 167
                                                       Lancaster, Virginia 22503


                              Telephone Number:        (804) 462-5220
                              Fax Number:              none


                              Meeting Time:            2nd Monday



                   Mathews County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:          Sherry C. Ashe, Administrative Assistant
                                                       Mathews County Wetlands Board
                                                       P.O. Box 839
                                                       Mathews, Virginia 23109


                              Telephone Number:        (804) 725-5025
                              Fax Number:              (at library) (804) 725-7668


                              Meeting Time:            1st Wednesday



                   Middlesex County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:          Cathy Wilson, Secretary
                                                       Middlesex County Wetlands Board
                                                       P.O. Box 423
                                                       Saluda, Virginia 23149


                              Telephone Number:        (804) 758-4305
                              Fax Number:              (804) 758-0061


                              Meeting Time:            2nd Tuesday










            6






                                                              Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting nmes



                            New Kent County Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          R. Joseph Emerson, Jr.
                                                               New Kent County Wetlands Board
                                                               P.O. Box 50
                                                               New Kent, Virginia 23124


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 966-9690
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 966-7135


                                      Meeting Time:            As Needed



                            Newport News Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          Robert G. Bates
                                                               Port Development Administrator
                                                               City of Newport News
                                                               2400 Washington Avenue
                                                               Newport News, Virginia 23607


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 247-8437
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 247-2389


                                      Meeting Time:            3rd Monday



                            Norfolk Wetlands Board


                                      Contact Person:          Karla Marshall
                                                               Environmental Services
                                                               645 Church Street
                                                               Norfolk, Virginia 23501


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 441-2152
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 626-1969


                                      Meeting Time:            2nd Wednesday







                                                                                                              7






            Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times



                    Northampton County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:          John L. Humphrey, Secretary
                                                       Northampton County Wetlands Board
                                                       clo Dept of Planning and Zoning
                                                       Box 538
                                                       Eastville, Virginia 23347


                              Telephone Number:        (804) 678-5872
                              Fax Number:              (804) 678-5055


                              Meeting Time:            3rd Wednesday



                    Northumberland County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:          Kenneth D. Eades
                                                       Zoning Administrator
                                                       Northumberland County Courthouse
                                                       Heatbsville, Virginia 22473


                              Telephone Number:        (804) 580-8910 or 580-7921
                              Fax Number:              (804) 580-4321


                              Meeting Time:            1st Thursday



                    Poquoson Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:          Deborah Vest, Secretary
                                                       Poquoson Wetlands Board
                                                       830 Poquoson Avenue
                                                       Poquoson, Virginia 23662


                              Telephone Number:        (804) 868-7151 ext. 25
                              Fax Number:              (804) 868-0512


                              Meeting Time:            3rd Wednesday








            8






                                                              Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting nmes



                            Portsmouth Wetlands Board


                                      Contact Person:          Martha Little
                                                               Department of Planning
                                                               801 Crawford Street
                                                               Portsmouth, Virginia 23704


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 393-8836
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 393-5230


                                      Meeting Time:            2nd Thursday



                            Prince William County Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          Art Reynolds
                                                               Prince William County
                                                               Dept. of Public Works
                                                               4361 Ridgewood Center Drive
                                                               Prince William, Virginia 22192


                                      Telephone Number:        (703) 335-6820
                                      Fax Number:              (703) 335-6828


                                      Meeting Time:            As Needed



                            Richmond County Wetlands Board

                                      Contact Person:          Bill Duncanson
                                                               Land Use Administrator
                                                               Richmond County
                                                               P.O. Box 1000
                                                               Warsaw, Virginia 22572


                                      Telephone Number:        (804) 333-3415
                                      Fax Number:              (804) 333-3408


                                      Meeting Time:            4th or last Thursday






                                                                                                              9






            Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times



                    Stafford County Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:           Philip G. Thompson
                                                        Stafford County Local Wetlands Board
                                                        P.O. Box 339
                                                        Stafford, Virginia 22554


                              Telephone Number:         (703) 659-8668
                              Fax Number:               (703) 659-6824


                              Meeting Time:             3rd Monday



                    Suffolk Wetlands Board


                              Contact Person:           Scott Mills
                                                        Wetlands Staff
                                                        Dept. of Community Development
                                                        Division of Planning
                                                        P.O. Box 1858
                                                        Suffolk, Virginia 23434


                              Telephone Number:         (804) 925-6485
                              Fax Number:               (804) 925-6386


                              Meeting Time:             2ndTbursday



                   Virginia Beach Wetlands Board

                              Contact Person:           Lonnie Warren
                                                        Office of the City Engineer
                                                        Municipal Center
                                                        Virginia Beach, Virginia 23456


                              Telephone Number:         (804) 427-4131
                              Fax Number:               (804) 426-5668


                              Meeting Time:             1st and 3rd Mondays






            10






                                                               Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting YYmes



                            West Point Wetlands Board


                                       Contact Person:          Tammy Carter
                                                                Town of West Point Wetlands Board
                                                                P.O. Box 152
                                                                West Point, Virginia 23181


                                       Telephone Number:        (804) 843-3426
                                       Fax Number:              (804) 843-4364


                                       Meeting Time:            As Needed



                             Westmoreland County Wetlands Board

                                       Contact Person:          PaulJones
                                                                Secretary-Coordinator
                                                                Westmoreland County Wetlands Board
                                                                P.O. Box 467
                                                                Montross, Virginia 22520


                                       Telelphone Number: (803) 493-0121
                                       Fax Number:              (804) 493-9309


                                       Meeting Time:            4th Wednesday



                             Williamsburg Wetlands Board

                                       Contact Person:          Jack Hobbs
                                                                Williamsburg Wetlands Board
                                                                401 Lafayette Street
                                                                Williamsburg, Virginia 23185


                                       Telephone Number:        (804) 220-6130
                                       Fax Number:              (804) 220-6109


                                       Meeting Time:            As Needed






             Local Wetland Board Contacts and Meeting Times



                    York County Wetlands Board

                               Contact Person:          Cynthia Taylor
                                                        Dept. of Planning & Community Development
                                                        P.O. Box 532
                                                        Yorktown, Virginia 23690


                               Telephone Number:        (804) 898-0080
                               Fax Number:              (804) 898-4201


                               Meeting Time:            1st Wednesday










































             12









             Laws of Virginia

              Relating to the

          Marine Resources of the
 0      Commonwealth of Virginia





 0






              Laws of Virginia



              Chapter 2.1. Wetlands.


                   Sec.
                   62.1-13.1.       Declaration of policy.
                   62.1-13.2.       Definitions.
                   62.1-13.2:1.     [Repealed.]
                   62.1-13.3.       Standards for use and development of wetlands; utilization of
                                    guidelines.
                   62.1-13.4.       Marine Resources Commission to develop guidelines.
                   62.1-13.4:1.     [Repealed.]
                   62.1-13.5.       Counties, cities and towns authorized to adopt wetlands zoning
                                    ordinance; terms of ordinance.
                   62.1-13.5:1.     [Repealed]
                   62.1-13.5:2.     Administrative procedures.
                   62.1-13.5:3.     [Not set out.]
                   62.1-13.6.       Appointment, terms, compensation, etc., of local wetlands boards;
                                    jurisdiction of county wetlands board over wetlands in town.
                   62.1-13.7.       Officers, meetings, rules, etc., of wetlands boards; records and reports.
                   62.1-13.8.       Local governing body to supply meeting space and services for wetlands
                                    board; removal of board member.
                   62.1-13.9.       Permits required for certain activities; issuance of permits by
                                    Commission.
                   62.1-13.10.      Commissioner of Marine Resources to review all decisions of wetlands
                                    boards.
                   62.1-13.11.      When Commission to review decision of wetlands board.
                   62.1-13.12.      Procedure for review.
                   62.1-13.13.      When Commission to modify, remand or reverse decision of wetlands
                                    board.
                   62.1-13.14.      Notice of Commission's decision.
                   62.1-13.14:1.    Time for issuance of permit.
                   62.1-13.15.      Judicial review.
                   62.1-13.16.      Investigations and prosecutions.
                   62.1-13.16:1.    Reporting, site inspections and notice to comply; Commission or
                                    Wetlands Board to issue stop work order or restoration order.
                   62.1-13.17.      Commission may receive gifts, etc.
                   62.1-13.18.      Violation of orders, rules and regulations.
                   62.1-13.18:1     Injunctions.
                   62.1-13.18:2.    Penalties.
                   62.1-13.19.      Jurisdiction of Commission not affected.
                   62.1-13.20.      Exemptions.


                   ï¿½ 62.1-13.1. Declaration of policy. - The Commonwealth of Virginia hereby recognizes
                   the unique character of the wetlands, an irreplaceable natural resource which, in its




             2






                                                                                                                         Laws of Virginia



                                natural state, is essential to the ecological systems of the tidal rivers, bays and es-
                                tuaries of the Commonwealth. This resource is essential for the production of marine
                                and inland wildlife, waterfowl, finfish, shellfish and flora; is valuable as a protective bar-
                                rier against floods, tidal storms and erosion of the shores and soil within the Common-
                                wealth; is important for the absorption of silt and of pollutants; and is important for
                                recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of the people for the promotion of tourism, naviga-
                                tion and commerce.


                                Continued destruction of Virginia's coastal wetlands will greatly contribute to the pollu-
                                tion of the Commonwealth's rivers, bays and estuaries; will diminish the abundance of
                                Virginia's marine and inland animals and waterfowl, finfish, shellfish and flora as sour-
                                ces of food, employment and recreation for the people of Virginia; will increase costs and
                                hazards associated with floods and tidal storms; and will accelerate erosion and the loss
                                of lands productive to the economy and the well-being of our citizens.

                                Therefore, in order to protect the public interest, promote the public health, safety and
                                the economic and general welfare of the Commonwealth, and to protect public and
                                private property, wildlife, marine fisheries and the natural environment, it is declared
                                to be the public policy of this Commonwealth to preserve the wetlands and to prevent
                                their despoliation and destruction and to accommodate necessary economic develop-
                                ment in a manner consistent with wetlands preservation. (1972, c. 711.)

                                       Cross references. - As to application of the Open-Space Land Act to wetlands, see ï¿½ 10-
                                       156.


                                       Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                                       see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972). For article assessing the adequacy of Virginia!s water
                                       policy, see 14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 312 (1972).

                                       For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wetlands Act," see 30
                                       Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973). For comment on nonpoint pollution control inVirginia, see
                                       13 U. Rich. L. Rev. 539 (1979). For article, "The Unresolved Structure of Property Rights
                                       in the Virginia Sbore," see 24 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 727 (1983).



                                ï¿½ 62.1-13.2. Definitions. - For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall
                                have the meanings respectively ascribed to them:

                                (a) "Commission" means the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

                                (b) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Marine Resources.

                                (c) "Person" means any corporation, association, or partnership, one or more in-
                                dividuals, or any unit of government or agency thereof

                                (d) "Tidewater Virginia" means the following counties: Accomack, Arlington, Caroline,
                                Charles City, Chesterfield, Essex, Fairfax, Gloucester, Hanover, Henrico, Isle of Wight,



                                                                                                                                             3






               Laws of Virginia



                    James City, Ying George, King and Queen, King William, Lancaster, Mathews, Mid-
                    dlesex, New Kent, Northampton, Northumberland, Prince George, PtInce William, Rich-
                    mond, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Surry, Westmoreland, and York; and the Cities of
                    Alexandria, Chesapeake, Colonial Heights, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fredericksburg,
                    Hampton, Hopewell, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Poquoson, Portsmouth, Rich-
                    mond, Suffolk, Virginia Beach and Williamsburg.

                    (e) "Governmental activity" means any or all of the services provided by the Common-
                    wealth or a county, city or town to its citizens for the purpose of maintaining public
                    facilities and shall include but shall not be limited to such services as constructing,
                    repairing and maintaining roads, sewage facilities, supplying and treating water, street
                    lights, and construction of public buildings.

                    M "Vegetated wetlands" means all that land lying between and contiguous to mean low
                    water and an elevation above mean low water equal to the factor 1.5 times the mean
                    tide range at the site of the proposed project in the county, city or town in question; and
                    upon which is growing on July 1, 1972, or grows thereon subsequent thereto, any one or
                    more of the following: saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay
                    (Spartina patens), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus),
                    saltwort (Salicornia spp.), sea lavender (Lirnonium spp.), marsh elder (Iva frutescens),
                    groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica sp.), sea oxeye (Borrichia
                    frutescens), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), big
                    cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), wildrice (Zizania
                    aquatica), bulrush (Scirpus validus), spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), sea rocket (Cakile eden-
                    tula), southern wildrice (Zizaniopsis miliacea), cattails (Typha spp.), three-squares
                    (Scirpus spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), bald cypress (Taxodium dis-
                    tichum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tupelo (Nyssa aquatics), dock (Rumex spp.), yel-
                    low pond lily (Nuphar sp.), marsh fleabane (Plucheapurpurascens), royal fern
                    (Osmunda regalis), marsh hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos), beggar's tick Widens sp.),
                    smartweeds (Polygonum sp.), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), sweet flag (Acorus calamus),
                    water hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus), reed grass (Phragmites australis) and switch
                    grass (Panicum virgatum).

                    The vegetated wetlands of Back Bay and its tributaries and the vegetated wetlands of
                    the North Landing River and its tributaries shall mean all marshes subject to flood-
                    ing.by normal tides, including wind tides, provided this shall not include hurricane or
                    tropical storm tides and upon which one or more of the following vegetation species are
                    growing or grows thereon subsequent to the passage of this amendment: saltmarsh
                    cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens), black needlerush
                    (Juncus roemerianus), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), groundsel bush (Baccharis
                    halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica sp.), arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed
                    (Pontederia cordata), big cordgrass (Spartina' cynosuroides), rice cutgrass (Leersia
                    oryzoides), wildrice (Zizania aquatica), bulrush (Scirpus validus), spikerush (Eleocharis
                    sp.), cattails (Typha spp.), threesquares (Scirpus spp.), dock (Rumex sp.), smartweed





               4






                                                                                                    Laws of Virginia



                           (Polygonum sp.), yellow pond lily (Nuphar sp.), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), marsh
                           hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos), beggar's tick (Bidens sp.), arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.),
                           water hemp (Amaranthus cannabinus), reed grass (Phragmites australis) and switch
                           grass (Panicum virgatum).

                           (g) "Wetlands board" or "Board" means a board created as provided in ï¿½ 62.1-13.6.

                           (h)"Wetlands zoning ordinance" means that ordinance set forth in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5.

                           (i) "County, city or town" shall mean the governing body of such county, city or town.

                           (j) "Back Bay and its tributaries" means the following as shown on the U.S. Geological
                           Survey Quadrangle Sheets for Virginia Beach, North Bay, and Knotts Island: Back Bay
                           north of the Virginia-North Carolina state line: Capsies Creek north of the Virginia-
                           North Carolina state line; Deal Creek; Devil Creek; Nawney Creek; Redhead Bay, Sand
                           Bay, Shipps Bay, North Bay, and the waters connecting them; Beggars Bridge Creek;
                           Muddy Creek; Ashville Bridge Creek; Hells Point Creek; Black Gut; and all coves,
                           ponds and natural waterways adjacent to or connecting with the above-named bodies of
                           water.


                           (k) "North Landing River and its tributaries" means the following as based on United
                           States Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheets for Pleasant Ridge, Creeds, and Fentress:
                           the North Landing River from the Virginia-North Carolina line to Virginia Highway
                           165 at North Landing Bridge; the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal from Virginia High-
                           way 165 at North Landing Bridge to the locks at Great Bridge; all named and unnamed
                           streams, creeks and rivers flowing into the North Landing River and the Chesapeake
                           and Albemarle Canal except the following: West Neck Creek north of Indian River
                           Road; Pocaty River west of Blackwater Road; Blackwater River west of its forks located
                           at a point approximately 6400 feet due west of the point where the Blackwater Road
                           crosses the Blackwater River at the village of Blackwater; Millbank Creek west of Black-
                           water Road.


                           (1) "Nonvegetated wetlands" means all that land lying contiguous to mean low water
                           and which land is between mean low water and mean high water not otherwise in-
                           cluded in the term "vegetated wetlands" as defined herein and also includes those un-
                           vegetated areas of Back Bay and its tributaries and the North Landing River and its
                           tributaries subject to flooding by normal tides including wind tides but not including
                           hurricane or tropical storm tides.

                           (m) "Wetlands" means both vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands. (1972, c. 711; 1973, c.
                           388; 1974, c. 297; 1975, c. 268; 1979, c. 524; 1982, c. 300.)


                                 Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                 made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                 unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                 therefore never went into effect.







                                                                                                                     5






                Laws of Virginia




                             Law Review. - For a note on purposes and types of wetlands regulation, see 58 Va. L.
                             Rev. 876 (1972). For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New VifgWii Wet-                                       is
                             lands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973).




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.2:1: Repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96.


                             Editor's note. - The repealed section was enacted by Acts 1973, c. 47 1. The 1973 act,
                             which was made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on
                             that date unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22,
                             1974, and therefore never went into effect.




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.3. Standards for use and development of wetlands; utilization of
                       guidelines. - The following standards shall apply to the use and development of wet-
                       lands and shall be considered in the determination of whether applications required by
                       this chapter should be granted or denied:

                       (1) Wetlands of primary ecological significance shall not be altered so that the ecological
                       systems in the wetlands are unreasonably disturbed.

                       (2) Development in Tidewater Virginia, to the maximum extent practical, shall be con-
                       centrated in wetlands of lesser ecological significance, in vegetated wetlands which
                       have been irreversibly disturbed before July 1, 1972, in nonvegetated wetlands as
                       described herein which have been irreversibly disturbed prior to January 1, 1983, and
                       in areas of Tidewater Virginia apart from the wetlands.

                       (3) The provisions of the guidelines promulgated by the Commission pursuant to ï¿½ 62.1-
                       13.4 of this Code shall be considered in applying the foregoing standards. (1972, c. 711;
                       1982, c. 300.)


                             Law Review. - For a note on purposes and types of wetlands regulation, see 58 Va. L.
                             Rev. 876 (1972). For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wet-
                             lands Act,* see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973). For article, "The Unresolved Structure of
                             Property Rights in the Virginia Shore," see 24 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 727 (1983).


                             It was proper for aggrieved riparian owner to allege a violation of the Wetlands
                             Act as a pendent state claim to its suit brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33
                             U.S.C. ï¿½ 1251 et seq. City of Norfolk v. Harold, 662 F. Supp. 959 (E.D. Va. 1987).




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.4. Marine Resources Commission to develop guidelines. - In order to im-
                       plement the policy set forth in ï¿½ 62.1-13. 1 and to assist counties, cities or towns in
                       regulation of vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands, the Commission shall, with the ad-
                       vice and assistance of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, which will evaluate wet-
                       lands by type and maintain a continuing inventory of vegetated wetlands, from time to



                6






                                                                                                        Laws of Virginia



                            time promulgate in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (ï¿½ 9-6.14:1 et seq.)
                            guidelines which scientifically evaluate vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands by type
                            and which set forth the consequences of use of these wetlands types. In addition, the
                            Commission may promulgate regulations in accordance with the Administrative
                            Process Act (ï¿½ 9-6.14:1 et seq.) which are necessary to carry out its powers and duties
                            under the provisions of this title. In developing guidelines or regulations, the Commis-
                            sion shall consult with any affected state governmental agency. (1972, c. 711; 1982, c.
                            300.)


                                  Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                  made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                  unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                  therefore never went into effect.


                                  Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                                  see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972). For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New
                                  Virginia Wetlands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973). For article, "The Un-
                                  resolved Structure of Property Rights in the Virginia Shore," see 24 Wm. & Mary L. Rev.
                                  727(1983).




                            ï¿½ 62.1-13.4:1: Repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96.

                                  Editor's note. - The repealed section was enacted by Acts 1973, c. 47 1. The 1973 act,
                                  which was made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on
                                  that date unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22,
                                  1974, and therefore never went into effect.




                            ï¿½ 62.1-13.5. Counties, cities and towns authorized to adopt wetlands zoning or-
                            dinance; terms of ordinance. - Any county, city or town may adopt the following or-
                            dinance, which, after January 1, 1983, shall serve as the only wetlands zoning
                            ordinance under which any wetlands board is authorized to operate.

                            Upon notification by any county, city or town that such ordinance has been adopted, the
                            Commission shall immediately forward to the wetlands board of such county, city, or
                            town any application then pending before the Commission over which that wetlands
                            board would have had jurisdiction, had such ordinance been in effect at the time of
                            filing by the applicant; however, if so requested by the applicant, such application shall
                            remain within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

                                                           Wetlands Zoning Ordinance

                            ï¿½ 1. The governing body of   ................................ acting pursuant to Chapter 2. 1 of Title
                            62.1 of the Code of Virginia, for purposes of fulfilling the policy standards set forth in
                            such chapter, adopts this ordinance regulating the use and development of wetlands.




                                                                                                                          7






             Laws of Virginia




                   ï¿½ 2. Definitions. - For the purposes of this ordinance:

                   (a) "Commission" means the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

                   (b) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Marine Resources.


                   W "Person" means any corporation, association or partnership, one or more individuals,
                   or any unit of government or agency thereof.

                   (d) "Governmental activity" means any or all of the services provided by this
                   .................... to its citizens for the purpose of maintaining this .................. and shall in-
                   clude but shall not be limited to such services as constructing, repairing and maintain-
                   ing roads, sewage facilities, supplying and treating water, street lights and construction
                   of public buildings.

                   (e) "Vegetated wetlands" means all that land lying between and contiguous to mean low
                   water and an elevation above mean low water equal to the factor 1.5 times the mean
                   tide range at the site of the proposed project in this ......................... ; and upon which is
                   growing on the effective date of this act or grown thereon subsequent thereto, any one
                   or more of the following: saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay
                   (Spartina patens), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus),
                   saltwort (Salicornia sp.), sea lavender (Limonium sp.), marsh elder (Iva frutescens),
                   groundselbush (Baccharis halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica sp.), sea oxeye (Borrichia
                   frutescens), arrow arum Weltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), big
                   cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), wildrice (Zizania
                   aquatica), bulrush (Scirpus validus), spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), sea rocket (Cakile eden-
                   tula), southern wildrice (Zizaniopsis miliacea), cattails (Typha spp.), threesquares (Scir-
                   pus spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
                   black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tupelo (Nyssa aquatics), dock (Rumex sp.), yellow pond lily
                   (Nuphar sp.), marsh fleabane (Plucheapurpurascens), royal fern (Osmunda regalis),
                   marsh hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos), beggar's tick (Bidens sp.), smartweed
                   (Polygonum sp.), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), sweet flag (Acorus calamus), water hemp
                   (Amaranthus cannabinus), reed grass (Phragmites communis), and switch grass
                   (Panicum virgatum).

                   The vegetated wetlands of Back Bay and its tributaries and the vegetated wetlands of
                   the North Landing River and its tributaries shall mean all marshes subject to flooding
                   by tides, including wind tides, provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical
                   storm tides, and upon which one or more of the following vegetation species are growing
                   or grows thereon subsequent to the passage of this amendment: saltmarsh cordgrass
                   (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens), black needlerush (Juncus
                   roemerianus), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifiblia), wax
                   myrtle (Myrica sp.), arrow arum. (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cor-
                   data), big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), wildrice
                   (Zizania aquatics), bulrush (Scirpus validus), spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), cattails




             8






                                                                                                    Laws of Virginia




                          (Typha spp.), threesquares (Scirpus spp.), dock (Rumex sp.), smartweed (Polygonum
                          sp.), yellow pond lily (Nuphar sp.), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), marsh hibiscus (Hibis-
                          cus moscheutos), beggar's tick (Bidens sp.), arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.), water hemp
                          (Amaranthus cannabinus), reed grass (Phragmites australis), and switch grass
                          (Panicum virgatum).

                          M "Wetlands board" or "board" means a board created as provided in ï¿½ 62.1-13.6 of the
                          Code of Virginia.

                          (g) "Back Bay and its tributaries" means the following as shown on the U.S. Geological
                          Survey Quadrangle Sheets for Virginia Beach, North Bay, and Knotts Island: Back Bay
                          north of the Virginia-North Carolina State line; Capsies Creek north of the Virginia-
                          North Carolina State line; Deal Creek; Devil Creek; Nawney Creek; Redhead Bay, Sand
                          Bay, Shipps Bay, North Bay, and the waters connecting them, Beggars Bridge Creek;
                          Muddy Creek; Ashville Bridge Creek; Hells Point Creek; Black Gut; and all coves,
                          ponds and natural waterways adjacent to or connecting with the above-named bodies of
                          water.


                          (h) "North Landing River and its tributaries" means the following as based on the
                          United States Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheets for Pleasant Ridge, Creeds, and
                          Fentress: the North Landing River from the Virginia-North Carolina line to Virginia
                          Highway 165 at North Landing Bridge; the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal from Vir-
                          ginia Highway 165 at North Landing Bridge to the locks at Great Bridge; all named and
                          unnamed streams, creeks, and rivers flowing into the North Landing River and the
                          Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal except the following: West Neck Creek north of In-
                          dian River Road; Pocaty River west of Blackwater Road; Blackwater River west of its
                          forks located at a point approximately 6400 feet due west of the point where the Black-
                          water Road crosses the Blackwater River at the village of Blackwater; Millbank Creek
                          west of Blackwater Road.


                          (i) "Nonvegetated wetlands" means all that land lying contiguous to mean low water
                          and which land is between mean low water and mean high water not otherwise in-
                          cluded in the term "vegetated wetlands" as defined herein and also includes those un-
                          vegetated areas of Back Bay and its tributaries and the North Landing River and its
                          tributaries subject to flooding by tides including wind tides but not including hurricane
                          or tropical storm tides.

                          0) "Wetlands" means both vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands.

                          ï¿½ 3. The following uses of and activities on wetlands are permitted, if otherwise per-
                          mitted by law:

                          (a) The construction and maintenance of noncommercial catwalks, piers, boathouses,
                          boat shelters, fences, duckblinds, wildlife management shelters, footbridges, observa-
                          tion decks and shelters and other similar structures, provided that such structures are




                                                                                                                     9






              Laws of Virginia



                    so constructed on pilings as to permit the reasonably unobstructed flow of the tide and
                    preserve the natural contour of the wetlands;

                    (b) The cultivation and harvesting of shellfish, and worms for bait;

                    W Noncommercial outdoor recreational activities, including hiking, boating, trapping,
                    hunting, fishing, shellfishing, horseback riding, swimming, skeet and trap shooting, and
                    shooting preserves, provided that no structure shall be constructed except as permitted
                    in subsection (a) of this section;

                    (d) The cultivation and harvesting of agricultural, forestry or horticultural products;
                    grazing and haying;

                    (e) Conservation, repletion and research activities of the Virginia Marine Resources
                    Commission, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Department of Game and In-
                    land Fisheries and other related conservation agencies;

                    W The construction or maintenance of aids to navigation which are authorized by
                    governmental authority;

                    (g) Emergency decrees of any duly appointed health officer of a governmental sub-
                    division acting to protect the public health;

                    (h) The normal maintenance, repair or addition to presently existing roads, highways,
                                                                      irm, corporation, utility, federal, state,
                    railroad beds, or the facilities of any person, fi
                    county, city or town abutting.on or crossing wetlands, provided that no waterway is al-
                    tered and no additional wetlands are covered;

                    W Governmental activity on wetlands owned or leased by the Commonwealth of Vir-
                    ginia, or a political subdivision thereof;

                    Q) The normal maintenance of man-made drainage ditches, provided that no additional
                    wetlands are covered and provided further that this paragraph shall not be deemed to
                    authorize construction of any drainage ditch; and

                    W Outdoor recreational activities, provided that such activities do not (i) impair the
                    natural functions of the wetlands, or 60 alter the natural contour of the wetlands.
                    ï¿½ 4. (a) A@y person who desires to use or develop any wetland within this       ...........  (coun-
                    ty, city or town), other than for those activities specified in ï¿½ 3 above, shall first file an
                    application for a permit with the wetlands board directly or through the Commission.

                    (b) An application shall include the following: the name and address of the applicant; a
                    detailed description of the proposed activity and a map, drawn to an appropriate and
                    uniform scale, showing the area of wetland directly affected, with the location of the
                    proposed work thereon, indicating the area of existing and proposed fill and excavation,




              10






                                                                                                        Laws of Virginia



                            especially the location, width, depth and length of any proposed channel and the dis-
                            posal area, all existing and proposed structures; sewage collection and treatment
                            facilities, utility installations, roadways, and other related appurtenances or facilities,
                            including those on adjacent uplands, and the type of equipment to be used and the
                            means of equipment access to the activity site; the names and addresses of owners of
                            record of adjacent land and known claimants of water rights in or adjacent to the wet-
                            land of whom the applicant has notice; an estimate of cost; the primary purpose of the
                            project; any secondary purposes of the project, including further projects; the public
                            benefit to be derived from the proposed project; a complete description of measures to be
                            taken during and after the alteration to reduce detrimental offsite effects; the comple-
                            tion date of the proposed work, project, or structure and such additional materials and
                            documentation as the wetlands board may deem necessary.

                            (c) A nonrefundable processing fee to cover the cost of processing the application, set by
                            the applicable governing body with due regard for the services to be rendered, including
                            the time, skill, and administrator's expense involved, shall accompany each application.

                            ï¿½ 5. All applications and maps and documents relating thereto shall be open for public
                            inspection at the office designated by the applicable governing body and as stated in the
                            advertisement for public hearing required in ï¿½ 6.

                            ï¿½ 6. Not later than sixty days after receipt of such application, the wetlands board shall
                            hold a public hearing on such application. The applicant, the local governing body, the
                            Commissioner, the owner of record of any land adjacent to the wetlands in question,
                            known claimants of water rights in or adjacent to the wetlands in question, the Virginia
                            Institute of Marine Science the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Water
                            Control Board, the Department of Transportation and governmental agencies express-
                            ing an interest therein shall be notified by the board of the hearing by mail not less
                            than twenty days prior to the date set for the hearing. The wetlands board shall also
                            cause notice of such hearing to be published at least once a week for two weeks prior to
                            such hearing in the newspaper having a general circulation in this    ....................  (county,
                            city or town). Every such advertisement shall contain a reference to the place or places
                            within the county or municipality where copies of the proposed application may be ex-
                            amined. The costs of such publication shall be paid by the applicant.

                            ï¿½ 7. In acting on any application for a permit, the board shall grant the application upon
                            the concurring favorable vote of three members of a five-member board or four members
                            of a seven-member board. The chairman of the board, or in his absence the acting chair-
                            man, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. Any person may
                            appear and be heard at the public hearing. Each witness at the hearing may submit a
                            concise written statement of his testimony. The board shall make a record of the
                            proceeding, which shall include the application, any written statements of witnesses, a
                            summary of statements of all witnesses, the findings and decision of the board, and the
                            rationale for the decision. The board shall. make its determination within thirty days
                            from the hearing. If the board fails to act within such time, the application shall be






             Laws of Virginia




                  deemed approved. Within forty-eight hours of its determination, the board shall notify
                  the applicant and the Commissioner of such determination and if the board has not
                  made a determination, it shall notify the applicant and the Commission that thirty days
                  have passed and that the application is deemed approved. The term "act" referenced
                  above shall be the action of taking a vote on the application. If the application receives
                  less than four concurring favorable votes, for a seven-member board and three concur-
                  ring favorable votes for a five-member board, this will be a determination to deny the
                  permit.

                  The board shall transmit a copy of the permit to the Commissioner. If the application is
                  reviewed or appealed, then the board shall transmit the record of its hearing to the
                  Commissioner. Upon a final determination by the Commission, the record shall be
                  returned to the board. The record shall be open for public inspection at the same office
                  as designated by the applicable governing body for the purposes of ï¿½ 5.

                  ï¿½ 8. The board may require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with
                  surety and conditions satisfactory to it securing to the Commonwealth compliance with
                  the conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The board may, after a hearing as
                  provided herein, suspend or revoke a permit if the board finds that the applicant has
                  failed to comply with any of the conditions or limitations set forth in the permit or has
                  exceeded the scope of the work as set forth in the application. The board after hearing
                  may suspend a permit if the applicant fails to comply with the terms and conditions set
                  forth in the application.

                  ï¿½ 9. (a) In making its decision whether to grant, to grant in modified form, or to deny an
                  application for a permit the board shall base its decision on these factors:

                  (1) Such matters raised through the testimony of any person in support of or in rebuttal
                  to the permit application.

                  (2) Impact of the development on the public health and welfare as expressed by the
                  policy and standards of Chapter 2.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and any
                  guidelines which may have been promulgated thereunder by the Commission.

                  (b) If the board, in applying the standards above, finds that the anticipated public and
                  private benefit of the proposed activity exceeds the anticipated public and private detri-
                  ment and that the proposed activity would not violate or tend to violate the purposes
                  and intent of Chapter 2.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and of this ordinance, the
                  board shall grant the permit, subject to any reasonable condition or modification
                  designed to minimize the impact of the activity on the ability of this ................... (coun-
                  ty, city or town), to provide governmental services and on the rights of any other person
                  and to carry out the public policy set forth in Chapter 2.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Vir-
                  ginia and in this ordinance. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
                  right of any person to seek compensation for any injury in fact incurred by him because
                  of the proposed activity. If the board finds that the anticipated public and private




             12






                                                                                                                Laws of Virginia




                              benefit from the proposed activity is exceeded by the anticipated public and private
                              detriment or that the proposed activity would violate the purposes and intent of Chap-
                              ter 2.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and of this ordinance, the board shall deny
                              the permit application with leave to the applicant to resubmit the application in
                              modified form.


                              ï¿½ 10. The permit shall be in writing, signed by the chairman of the board and notarized.

                              ï¿½ 11. No permit shall be granted without an expiration date, and the board, in the exer-
                              cise of its discretion, shall designate an expiration date for completion of such work
                              specified in the permit from the date the board granted such permit. The board, how-
                              ever, may, upon proper application therefor, grant extensions.

                              ï¿½ 12. No permit granted by a wetlands board shall affect in any way the applicable
                              zoning and land use ordinances of this      ................ (county, city or town). (1972, c. 711;
                              1973, cc. 382, 388; 1975, c. 268; 1979, c. 418; 1982, c. 300; 1985, c. 541; 1988 , c. 587;
                              1989, c. 360.)


                                    Cross references. - As to adoption of coastal primary sand dune zoning ordinance, see ï¿½
                                    62.1-13.25.


                                    Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                    made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                    unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                    therefore never went into effect.


                                    The 1988 amendment substituted "designated by the applicable governing body and as
                                    stated in the advertisement for public hearing required in ï¿½ 6" for "of the recording officer
                                    of this - (county, city or town)" in ï¿½ 5, added the next-to-last sentence in ï¿½ 6 and
                                    substituted "same office as designated by the applicable governing body for the purposes of
                                    ï¿½ 6" for "office of the recording officer of this _ (county, city or town)" at the end of
                                    the second paragraph in ï¿½ 7 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance.

                                    The 1989 amendment, in ï¿½ 3, deleted "and" at the end of subdivision (i), added "and" at
                                    the end of subsection 0), and added subsection (k); and made minor stylistic changes
                                    throughout the section.


                                    Law Review. - For article, 'Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wet-
                                    lands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973). For article, "Public Access to Virginia's
                                    Tidelands: A Framework for Analysis of Implied Dedications and Public Prescriptive
                                    Rights," see 24 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 669 (1983). For article, "The Unresolved Structure of
                                    Property Rights in the Virginia Shore," see 24 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 727 (1983).




                              ï¿½ 62.1-13.5:1: Repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96.

                                    Editor's note. - The repealed section was enacted by Acts 1973, c. 47 1. The 1973 act,
                                    which was made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on






                                                                                                                                 13






                Laws of Virginia




                             that date unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22,
                             1974, and therefore never went into effect.




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.5:2. Administrative procedures. - The Commission may, in conjunction
                       with local wetlands boards and other affected state and federal agencies, develop ad-
                       ministrative procedures to expedite the processing of applications for permits required
                       under this chapter. In any case in which an application is received by the Commission
                       for a permit over which a local board has jurisdiction under a wetlands zoning or-
                       dinance, the Commission shall forward a copy of the application to that board within
                       seven days. (1982, c. 300.)




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.5:3: Not set out.


                             Editor's note. - This section, relating to emergency sand grading activities on non-
                             vegetated wetlands located on the Atlantic Shoreline of Virginia Beach, was enacted by
                             Acts 1984, c. 518. In furtherance of the general policy of the Virginia Code Commission to
                             include in the Code only provisions having general and permanent application, this sec-
                             tion, which is limited in its purpose and scope is not set out here, but attention is called to
                             it by this reference.




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.6. Appointment, terms, compensation, etc., of local wetlands boards;
                       jurisdiction of county wetlands board over wetlands in town. - A. In and for any
                       county, city or town which has enacted or enacts a wetlands zoning ordinance pursuant
                       to this chapter, there shall be created a wetlands board, which shall consist of five or
                       seven residents of the county, city or town appointed by the governing body of the coun-
                       ty, city or town. All terms of office shall be for five years each except that original ap-
                       pointments shall be made for such terms that the term of one member shall expire each
                       year. The chairman of the board shall notify the governing body at least thirty days in
                       advance of the expiration of any term of office, and           'shall also notify the governing body
                       promptly if any vacancy occurs. Such vacancies shall be filled by the governing body
                       without delay upon receipt of such notice. Appointments to fill vacancies shall be only
                       for the unexpired portion of the term. Members may serve successive terms. Members
                       of the board shall hold no other public office in the county or city except that they may
                       be members of the local planning or zoning commission, directors of soil and water con-
                       servation boards, or local erosion commissions, or of the local board of zoning appeals. A
                       member whose term expires shall continue to serve until his successor is appointed and
                       qualified. When such members are appointed to a local wetlands board, their terms of
                       appointment shall be coterminous with their membership on the local planning or
                       zoning commission, soil and water conservation boards, or local erosion commissions or
                       on the local board of zoning appeals.





                14






                                                                                                                           Laws of Virginia



                                  B. If a town does not enact a wetlands zoning ordinance within one year from the time
                                  the county in which the town is found enacts a wetlands zoning ordinance, application
                                  for wetlands found in the town shall be made to the county wetlands board.

                                  C. Any county, city or town which appoints a local wetlands board pursuant to this sec-
                                  tion may compensate the members of the board in accordance with such terms and con-
                                  ditions as the locality may prescribe.

                                  D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Town of Dumfries in Prince
                                  William County may enact a wetlands zoning ordinance pursuant to the provisions of
                                  this chapter. (1972, c. 711; 1977, c. 15; 1978, c. 585; 1982, cc. 300, 446; 1983, c. 87; 1987,
                                  c. 62.)


                                        Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                                        see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972).




                                  ï¿½ 62.1-13.7. Officers, meetings, rules, etc., of wetlands boards; records and
                                  reports. - The board shall elect from its membership a chairman and such other of-
                                  ficers as it deems necessary who shall serve one-year terms as such and may succeed
                                  themselves. For the conduct of any hearing and the taking of any action, a quorum shall
                                  be not less than three members of a five-member board, or four members of a seven-
                                  member board. The board may make, alter and rescind rules and forms for its proce-
                                  dures, consistent with ordinances of the county, city or town and general laws of the
                                  Commonwealth, including this chapter. The board shall keep a full public record of its
                                  proceedings and shall submit a report of its activities to the governing body at least
                                  once each year, and a copy of its report to the Commission. (1972, c. 711; 1977, c. 15;
                                  1982, c. 446.)


                                        Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                        made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                        unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                        therefore never went into effect.





                                  ï¿½ 62.1-13.8. Local governing body to supply meeting space and services for wet-
                                  lands board; removal of board member. - The governing body of the county, city or
                                  town creating a wetlands board shall supply reasonable meeting space for the use of the
                                  board and such reasonable secretarial, clerical, legal and consulting services as may be
                                  needed by the board. The local governing body is authorized to expend the necessary
                                  public funds. Any board member may be removed for malfeasance, misfeasance or non-
                                  feasance in office, or for other just cause, by the governing body which appointed him,
                                  after hearing held after at least fifteen days' notice. (1972, c. 7 11.)


     0

                                                                                                                                                15






                Laws of Virginia




                             Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                             made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                             unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                             therefore never went into effect.


                             Law Review. - For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wet-
                             lands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973).




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.9. Permits required for certain activities; issuance of permits by Com-
                       mission. - No person shall conduct any activity which would require a permit under a
                       wetlands zoning ordinance unless he has a permit therefor. Until such time as the coun-
                       ty, city, or town in which a person proposes to conduct an activity which would require a
                       permit under a wetlands zoning ordinance adopts the wetlands zoning ordinance such
                       person shall apply for a permit directly to the Commission except as provided in ï¿½ 62. 1-
                       13.6 (B). If an applicant desires to use or develop wetlands owned by the Common-
                       wealth, he shall apply for a permit directly to the Commission and in addition to the
                       application fee required by the wetlands zoning ordinance, he shall pay such fees and
                       royalties as provided in ï¿½ 62.1-3.

                       The Commission shall process such application in accordance with the provisions of the
                       wetlands zoning ordinance and the Commissioner shall sign such permit; provided, how-
                       ever, that the Commission shall have the authority to designate one or more hearing of-
                       ficers who may, in lieu of the Commission, conduct public hearings as required in ï¿½
                       62.1-13.5, and thereafter report such findings and recommendations to the Commission.
                       (1972, c. 711.)


                             Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                             made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                             unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                             therefore never went into effect.


                             Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                             see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972). For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New
                             Virginia Wetlands.Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973).




                       ï¿½ 62.1-13.10. Commissioner of Marine Resources to review all decisions of wet-
                       lands boards. - The Commissioner shall review all decisions of the wetlands board and
                       notify the Commission of any decision which in his opinion should be reviewed by the
                       Commission. (1972, c. 711.)


                             Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                             see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972). For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New
                             Virginia Wetlands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973).







                1-6






                                                                                                       Laws of Virginia



                            ï¿½ 62.1-13.11. When Commission to review decision of wetlands board. - The Com-
                            mission shall review a decision of a wetlands board made under a wetlands zoning or-
                            dinance when:

                            (1) An appeal is taken from such decision by the applicant for a permit or by the county,
                            city or town where the wetlands are located; or

                            (2) The Commissioner requests such review. The Commissioner shall request such
                            review only when he reasonably believes that the policy and standards of this chapter
                            have not been adequately achieved or that any guidelines which may have been promul-
                            gated by the Commission have not been reasonably accommodated. In order to make
                            such a request, the Commissioner must notify the board and the applicant and the coun-
                            ty, city or town where the wetlands are located within ten days of receipt of notice to the
                            Commissioner of the decision of the board.

                            (3) Twenty-five or more freeholders of property within the county, city or town in which
                            the proposed project is located sign and submit a petition to the Commission, provided,
                            such petition must include a statement of particulars setting forth those specific instan-
                            ces wherein the petitioners do allege that the board did fail to follow the policy, stand-
                            ards or guidelines of this chapter.

                            (4) Where not otherwise provided, the foregoing requests for review or appeal shall be
                            made within ten days from date of initial determination by the board; and provided that
                            the Commission shall hear and decide such review or appeal within forty-five days after
                            notice of such review or appeal is received a continuance may be granted by the Com-
                            mission on a motion of the applicant or the freeholders as specified in subdivision (3) of
                            this section or the county, city or town where the wetlands are located. (1972, c. 711.)

                                  Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                  made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                  unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                  therefore never went into effect.


                                  Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                                  see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972).


                            ï¿½ 62.1-13.12. Procedure for review. - (a) The Commissioner shall cause notice of the
                            review or appeal to be given to the board, to the applicant, to the freeholders specified
                            in SS 62.1-13.11 (3) and to the county, city or town where the wetlands are located.

                            (b) The Commission shall hear the appeal or conduct the review on the record trans-
                            mitted by the board to the Commissioner and such additional evidence as may be neces-
                            sary to resolve any controversy as to the correctness of the record. And the Commission,
                            in its discretion, may receive such other evidence as the ends of justice require. (1972, c.
                            711.)







                                                                                                                         17





             Laws of Virginia




                        Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                        made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                        unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                        therefore never went into effect.


                        Law Review. - For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wet-
                        lands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973).




                  ï¿½ 62.1-13.13. NMen Commission to modify, remand or reverse decision of wet-
                  lands board. - The Commission shall modify, remand or reverse the decision of the wet-
                  lands board:


                  (1) If the decision of the wetlands board will not adequately achieve the policy and
                  standards of this chapter or will not reasonably accommodate any guidelines which may
                  have been promulgated by the Commission hereunder; or

                  (2) If the substantial rights of the appellant or the applicant have been prejudiced be-
                  cause the findings, conclusions or decisions are

                  (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or

                  (b) In excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the wetlands board; or

                  (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; or

                  (d) Affected by other error of law; or


                  (e) Unsupported by the evidence on the record considered as a whole; or

                  (f) Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. (1972, c. 711; 1975, c. 467.)

                        Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                        made effective July 1, 1974. and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                        unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                        therefore never went into effect.


                        Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                        see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972).




                  ï¿½ 62.1-13.14. Notice of Commission's decision. - The Commission shall notify the
                  parties of its determination within forty-eight hours after the appeal or review. (1972, c.
                  711.)


                        Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                        made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date





            18






                                                                                                                          Laws of Virginia




                                       unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                       therefore never went into effect.




                                 ï¿½ 62.1-13.14:1. Time for issuance of permit. - No permit shall be issued until the
                                 time within which a request for review or an appeal to the Commission may be made
                                 has expired; and, if any such request for review or appeal is made, no activity for which
                                 such permit is required shall be commenced until the Commission has notified the par-
                                 ties of its determination. (1973, c. 65.)




                                 ï¿½ 62.1-13.15. Judicial review. - (1) An appeal from any decision of the Commission
                                 concerning an application for a permit granted or denied directly by the Commission, or
                                 from any decision of the Commission on review of or appeal from a decision of the board
                                 may be taken by the applicant, any of the freeholders as set forth in ï¿½ 62.1-13.11 (3), or
                                 by the county, city or town where the wetlands are located as provided in (2) below.

                                 (2) Judicial review shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative
                                 Process Act (ï¿½ 9-6.14:1 et seq.). (1972, c. 711; 1982, c. 300; 1986, c. 615.)

                                       Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                       made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                       unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                       therefore never went into effect.


                                       Law Review. - For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New Virginia Wet-
                                       lands Act," see 30 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 19 (1973).




                                 ï¿½ 62.1-13.16. Investigations and prosecutions. - The Commission shall have the
                                 authority to investigate all projects whether proposed or ongoing which alter wetlands.
                                 The Commission shall have the power to prosecute all violations of any order, rule, or
                                 regulation of the Commission or of a wetlands board, or violation of any provision of this
                                 chapter. Wetlands boards shall have the authority to investigate all projects whether
                                 proposed or ongoing which alter wetlands located within the city, town or county estab-
                                 lishing such wetlands board. Wetlands boards shall have the power to prosecute all
                                 violations of any order of such boards, or any violation of any provision of the wetlands
                                 zoning ordinance contained in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5. (1972, c. 711; 1975, c. 467.)


                                       Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                       made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                       unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                       therefore never went into effect.




     0

                                                                                                                                              19






             Laws of Virginia



                   ï¿½ 62.1-13.16:1. Reporting, site inspections and notice to comply; Commission or
                   Wetlands Board to issue stop work order or restoration order. - A. With respect
                   to permits required pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 1 (ï¿½ 62. 1- 1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2
                   (ï¿½ 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of this title, the Commissioner or Board Chairman may require of
                   the person responsible for carrying out the provisions of the permit such monitoring and
                   reports as they may reasonably deem necessary. With respect to any reported activity
                   not authorized by the aforementioned chapters or with respect to the violation of any
                   permit issued pursuant thereto, they may direct such on-site inspections as are deemed
                   reasonably necessary to determine whether the measures required by the permit are
                   being properly performed, or whether the provisions of the aforementioned chapters are
                   being violated. Prior to conducting such inspections, notice shall be provided to the resi-
                   dent owner, occupier or operator.

                   Such resident owner, occupier or operator shall be given an opportunity to accompany
                   the site inspector. If it is determined that there is a failure to comply with the permit,
                   the Commissioner or Board Chairman shall serve notice upon the person who is respon-
                   sible for carrying out the provisions of the permit at the address specified by him in his
                   application or by delivery at the site of the permitted activities to the person supervis-
                   ing such activities and designated in the permit to receive such notice. Such notice shall
                   set forth the measures needed for compliance and the time within which such measures
                   shall be completed. Upon failure of such person to comply within the specified period,
                   he may be deemed to be in violation of this section and upon conviction shall be subject
                   to the penalties provided in this chapter.

                   B. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial violation of this chapter, Chapter
                   1 (ï¿½ 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of this title from the designated
                   enforcement officer, the Commissioner or Board Chairman may, in conjunction with or
                   subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in subsection A of this section, issue an
                   order requiring all or part of the activities on the site to be stopped until the specified
                   corrective measures have been taken. In the case of an activity not authorized by the
                   aforementioned chapters or where the alleged permit noncompliance is causing, or is in
                   imminent danger of causing, significant harm to the subaqueous bottoms, wetlands or
                   the coastal primary sand dunes protected by the aforementioned chapters, such an
                   order may be issued without regard to whether the person has been issued a notice to
                   comply as specified in subsection A of this section. Otherwise, such an order may be is-
                   sued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The
                   order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in ef-
                   fect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending application by the enforc-
                   ing authority, permit holder or the resident owner, occupier or operator for appropriate
                   relief to the circuit court of the jurisdiction wherein the violation was alleged to have oc-
                   curred. Upon completion of corrective action, the order shall immediately be lifted. Noth-
                   ing in this section shall prevent the Commissioner or Board Chairman from taking any
                   other action specified in ï¿½ 62.1-13.16.






             20






                                                                                                                          Laws of Virginia




                                 C. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial violation of this chapter, Chapter
                                 1 (ï¿½ 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.23 et seq.) of this title from a designated en-
                                 forcement officer, the Commission or a wetlands board may order that the affected site
                                 be restored to predevelopment conditions if the Commission or board deems restoration
                                 necessary to recover lost resources or to prevent further damage to resources. Such an
                                 order shall specify the restoration necessary and establish a reasonable time for its com-
                                 pletion. Such orders shall be issued only after a hearing with at least thirty days notice
                                 to the affected person of the time, place and purpose thereof, and they shall become ef-
                                 fective immediately upon issuance by the Commission or board. The Commission or
                                 board shall require such scientific monitoring plans as it deems necessary to ensure
                                 that such projects result in the successful reestablishment of wetlands, subaqueous bot-
                                 toms or coastal primary sand dunes protected by the aforementioned chapters and may
                                 require that a prepaid contract acceptable to the Commission or board be in effect for
                                 the purposes of carrying out the scientific monitoring plan. In addition, the Commission
                                 or board may require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with surety
                                 and conditions satisfactory to it securing to the Commonwealth compliance with the con-
                                 ditions set forth in the restoration order. The appropriate court, upon petition by the
                                 Commission or board, shall have authority to enforce any such restoration order by in-
                                 junction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Failure to complete the required res-
                                 toration shall constitute a violation of this chapter.

                                 D. The duties of the Commissioner or the Board Chairman prescribed in this section
                                 may be delegated to their respective designees; however, such respective designees
                                 shall not be those persons who are also designated as enforcement officers. (1987;- c:,
                                 436; 1990, c. 81 1.)


                                       The 1990 amendment deleted the former heading of subsection A which read: "Report-
                                       ing, site inspections and notice to comply," deleted the former heading of subsection B
                                       which read: "Issuance of stop work order," added present subsection C, and redesignated
                                       former-subsection C as present subsection D.




                                 ï¿½ 62.1-13.17. Commission may receive gifts, etc. - The Commission may receive
                                 gifts, grants, bequests, and devises of wetlands and of money which shall be taken and
                                 held for the uses prescribed by the donor, grantor, or testator and in accord with the
                                 purposes of this chapter. The Commission shall manage such wetlands in such a way as
                                 to maximize their ecological value and in accord with the purposes of this chapter.
                                 (1972, c. 711.)

                                       Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                       made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                       unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                       therefore never went into effect.











                                                                                                                                               21






             Laws of Virginia



                   ï¿½ 62.1-13.18. Violation of orders, rules and regulations. - Any person who knowing-
                   ly, intentionally, negligently or continually violates any order, rule or regulation of the
                   Commission or of a wetlands board established pursuant to this chapter or violates any
                   provision of this chapter or of a wetlands zoning ordinance enacted pursuant to this
                   chapter or any provision of a permit granted by a wetlands board or the Commission
                   pursuant to this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Following a conviction, every
                   day the violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense. (1972, c. 711.)

                        Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                        made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                        unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                        therefore never went into effect.




                   ï¿½ 62.1-13.18.1. Injunctions. - In addition to and notwithstanding the provisions of ï¿½
                   62.1-13.18, upon petition of the Commission or a wetlands board to the court of record
                   having jurisdiction in the city or county wherein any act is done or is threatened to be
                   done which is unlawful under the provisions of this chapter, the court may enjoin such
                   unlawful act and may order the person so acting unlawfully to take such steps as are
                   necessary to restore, protect and preserve the wetlands involved. (1973, c. 65.)




                   ï¿½ 62.1-13.18:2. Penalties. - A- Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
                   this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or
                   fails, neglects or refuses to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule,
                   regulation or permit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an
                   appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day
                   of violation. Such civil penalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be
                   directed to be paid into the treasury of the county, city, or town in which the violation
                   occurred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wet-
                   lands therein, in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where
                   the violator is the county, city, or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the
                   penalty to be paid into the state treasury.

                   B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
                   consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated
                   or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board order, rule,
                   regulation, or permit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands
                   board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against
                   such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific
                   sums, not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Civil charges shall bein lieu of any ap-
                   propriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civil
                   charges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or
                   a wetlands board. (1990, c. 811.)




             22






                                                                                                     Laws of Virginia






                           ï¿½ 62.1-13.19. Jurisdiction of Commission not affected. - Nothing in this chapter
                           shall affect the Commission's sole jurisdiction over areas and activities as defined by
                           Title 28.1 or ï¿½ 62.1-3 of this Code. (1972, c. 711.)


                                Editor's note. - This section was amended by Acts 1973, c. 471. The 1973 act, which was
                                made effective July 1, 1974, and provided that it should expire at midnight on that date
                                unless earlier reenacted, was repealed by Acts 1974, c. 96, effective March 22, 1974, and
                                therefore never went into effect.





                           ï¿½ 62.1-13.20. Exemptions. - Nothing in this chapter shall affect (1) any project in
                           vegetated wetlands commenced prior to July 1, 1972, or any project in nonvegetated
                           wetlands commenced prior to January 4, 1983; however, this section shall not be
                           deemed to exclude from regulation under this chapter any activity which expands or en-
                           larges upon a project already in existence or under construction at the time of such
                           date, except for those activities exempted under ï¿½ 62..1-13.5 (3) (h); (2) any project or
                           development in vegetated wetlands for which, prior to July 1, 1972, or in nonvegetated
                           wetlands for which, prior to January 1, 1983, a plan or plan of development thereof has
                           been filed pursuant to ordinance or other lawful enactment with either an agency of the
                           federal or state government, or with either the planning commission, board of super-
                           visors, or city council of the jurisdiction in which the project or development is located;
                           (3) any project or development in vegetated wetlands, whether commenced prior to July
                           1, 1972, and in nonvegetated wetlands whether commenced prior to January 1, 1983, if
                           located or to be located in whole or in part on ground or in an area an interest in which
                           was authorized by the General Assembly to be conveyed prior to July 1, 1972, for
                           vegetated wetlands and July 1, 1982, for nonvegetated wetlands; and (4) for the North
                           Landing River and its tributaries exemptions (1) and (2) above shall take effect July 1,
                           1975, for vegetated wetlands, and January 1, 1983, for nonvegetated wetlands.

                           For exemptions (1) and (2) herein to be effective, the project or development must be cer-
                           tified as exempt by the Commission or appropriate local wetlands board. The request
                           for certification must be filed prior to January 1, 1984. Projects or developments which
                           have been determined by the Commission or the appropriate local wetlands board prior
                           to July 1, 1982, to be exempt from the provisions of this chapter shall be considered to
                           be certified. If the request for certification is not granted or denied within 120 days from
                           receipt of request by the Commission or a local wetlands board, the certification will be
                           conclusively presumed to have been granted. The time limitations and public hearing re-
                           quirements imposed by ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 shall not apply to the certification process. Upon re-
                           quest by any person holding a certification issued by the Commission or a local
                           wetlands board, the clerk of the circuit court having jurisdiction over the property on
                           which the certified project is located shall record such certification in the appropriate
                           deed book of the circuit court. (1972, c. 711; 1975, c. 268; 1982, cc. 300, 468.)
    0

                                                                                                                     23





               Laws of Virginia




                            Law Review. - For survey of Virginia law on administrative law for the year 1971-1972,
                            see 58 Va. L. Rev. 1159 (1972). For article, "Virginia Natural Resources Law and the New
                            Virginia Wetlands Act," see 30 Wash. & Ue L. Rev. 19 (1973).



































































               24






                                                                                                     Laws of Virginia



                     Chapter 2.2. Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act.


                           See.
                           62.1-13.21.     Legislative declaration; sand dunes and beaches protected.
                           62.1-13.22.     Definitions.
                           62.1-13.23.     Standards for use of coastal primary sand dunes.
                           62.1-13.24.     Guidelines.
                           62.1-13.25.     Certain counties and cities authorized to adopt coastal primary sand
                                           dune ordinance.
                           62.1-13.25:1.   [Repealed.]
                           62.1-13.26.     Permits required for certain activities; issuance of permits by
                                           Commission.
                           62.1-13.27.     Administration; appeals; enforcement.
                           62.1-13.27:1.   Penalties.
                           62.1-13.28.     Exemptions.



                           ï¿½ 62.1-13.21. Legislative declaration; sand dunes and beaches protected. - A.
                           The Commonwealth of Virginia hereby recognizes the importance of coastal primary
                           sand dunes with their unique physiographic features which, in their natural state,
                           serve as protective barriers from the effects of flooding and erosion caused by coastal
                           storms, thereby protecting life and property; that such dunes provide an essential
                           source of natural sand replenishment for beaches and an important natural habitat for
                           coastal fauna; and are important to the overall scenic and recreational attractiveness of
                           Virginia's coastal area.

                           Inappropriate development on coastal primary sand dunes and beaches can destroy
                           vegetation which stabilizes such features, alter the natural contour of these sand dunes
                           and beaches, impede their natural formation and migration and interrupt wind and
                           water currents which replenish the sand supply of beaches. Such alterations to coastal
                           primary sand dunes and beaches may lead to increased shoreline erosion, coastal flood-
                           ing, damage to fixed structures near the shore, loss of public and private open space,
                           loss of wildlife habitat and increased expenditure of public funds.

                           Therefore, in order to reasonably protect the public interest, promote public health,
                           safety, the general welfare of the Commonwealth, protect private and public property
                           from erosion and flooding and protect wildlife and the natural environment, it is
                           declared to be the public policy of the Commonwealth whenever reasonably necessary to
                           preserve and protect coastal primary sand dunes and beaches and to prevent their
                           despoliation and destruction and whenever practical to accommodate necessary
                           economic development in a manner consistent with the protection of such features.






               Laws of Virginia



                     B. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the protection of coastal primary sand
                     dunes and beaches. Whenever coastal primary sand dunes are referred to in this chap-
                     ter such references shall also include beaches. (1980, c. 660; 1984, c. 556; 1989, c. 342.)

                            The numbers of ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.21 through 62.1-13.28 were assigned by the Virginia Code
                            Commission, the numbers in the 1980 act having been 62.1-13.20:1 through 62.1-13.20:8.


                            The 1989 amendment designated the first paragraph as subsection A, substituted
                            "beaches" for "reaches" in the second and third paragraphs, and added subsection B.




                     ï¿½ 62.1-13.22. Definitions. - For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall
                     have the meanings respectively ascribed to them:

                     "Beach" means (i) the shoreline zone comprised of unconsolidated sandy material upon
                     which there is a mutual interaction of the forces of erosion, sediment transport and
                     deposition that extends from the low water line landward to where there is a marked
                     change in either material composition or physiographic form such as a dune, bluff or
                     marsh, or (ii) where no such change can be identified, to the line of woody vegetation
                     (usually the effective limit of stormwaves), or the nearest impermeable man-made struc-
                     ture, such as a bulkhead, revetment or paved road.

                     "Commission" means the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

                     "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of the Virginia Marine Resources Commis-
                     sion.


                     "County or city" means the governing body of such county or city.

                     "Coastal primary sand dune" means a mound of unconsolidated sandy soil which is con-
                     tiguous to mean high water, whose landward and lateral limits are marked by a change
                     in grade from ten percent or greater to less than ten percent, and upon any part of
                     which is growing as of July 1, 1980, or grows thereon subsequent thereto, any one or
                     more of the following: American beach grass (Ammophilla breviligulata); beach heather
                     (Huisonia tometosa); dune bean (Strophostylis umbellata var, paludigena); dusty miller
                     (Artemisia stelleriana); saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens)-, seabeach-handwort
                     (Arenaria peptoides); sea oats (Uniola paniculata); sea rocket (Cakile edentula); seaside
                     goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens); and short dune grass (P(Inicum ararum). For pur-
                     poses of this chapter, "coastal primary sand dune" shall not include any mound of sand,
                     sandy soil or dredge soil which has been deposited by man for the purpose of the tem-
                     porary storage of such material for later use.

                     "Coastal primary sand dune zoning ordinance" means that ordinance set forth in ï¿½ 62. 1-
                     13.25.








              2






                                                                                                          Laws of Virginia



                             "Governmental activity" means any or all of the services provided by the Common-
                             wealth or a county or city to its citizens for the purpose of maintaining public facilities
                             and shall include but not be limited to such services as constructing, repairing and
                             maintaining roads, sewage facilities, supplying and treating water, street lights and con-
                             structing public buildings. (1980, c. 660; 1984, c. 556; 1985, c. 589; 1987, c. 499; 1989, c.
                             342.)

                                  Cross references. - As to the erecting and maintenance of protective bulkheads by cer-
                                  tain property owners in the Sandbridge Beach subdivision, see SS 62.1-13.28 B.

                                  The 1989 amendment added the paragraph defining "Beach," deleted the designations of
                                  subsections A through F, and deleted former subsection G which defined "Reach."



                             ï¿½ 62.1-13.23. Standards for use of coastal primary sand dunes. - No permanent al-
                             teration of or construction upon any coastal primary sand dune shall take place which
                             would: (i) impair the natural functions of the dune as described herein; (ii) physically
                             alter the contour of the dune; (iii) destroy vegetation growing thereon as defined herein
                             unless the wetlands board, or in its absence the Commission, determines that there will
                             be no significant adverse ecological impact, or that the granting of a permit hereunder
                             is clearly necessary and consistent with the public interest considering all material fac-
                             tors. (1980, c. 660.)




                             ï¿½ 62.1-13.24. Guidelines. - In order to implement the policy set forth in SS 62.1-13.21
                             and to assist cities and counties in the regulation of coastal primary sand dunes, the
                             Commission shall, with advice and assistance from the Virginia Institute of Marine
                             Science, promulgate guidelines which set forth the consequences of the use of these
                             dunes. In developing these guidelines, the Commission shall consult with any affected
                             state governmental agency. (1980, c. 660.)




                             ï¿½ 62.1-13.25. Certain counties and cities authorized to adopt coastal primary
                             sand dune ordinance. - Any of the following counties or cities which adopt a wetlands
                             ordinance pursuant to ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 may adopt the ordinance contained herein: the Coun-
                             ties of Accomack, Lancaster, Mathews, Northampton and Northumberland and the
                             Cities of Hampton, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach. In the event that a locality has not
                             adopted a wetlands ordinance pursuant to Chapter 2.1 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.1 et seq.) of Title 62.1,
                             such locality may adopt the ordinance contained herein; however, such locality shall ap-
                             point a wetlands board following the procedure specified in ï¿½ 62.1-13.6. Any county or
                             city which has adopted the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance prior to July
                             1, 1989, shall amend such ordinance to conform it to the ordinance contained herein by





                                                                                                                            3






               Laws of Virginia



                    December 1, 1989. Until such county or city has made such amendment, the ordinance
                    shall be read as if it conformed with the ordinance contained herein.




                                       Coastal,Pjrimary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance

                    ï¿½ 1. The governing body of  ............................. acting pursuant to Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62. 1-
                    13.21 et seq.) of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia, for the purposes of fulfilling the policy
                    and standards set forth in such chapter, adopts this ordinance regulating the use and
                    development of coastal primary sand dunes. Whenever coastal primary sand dunes are
                    referred to in this ordinance, such references shall also include beaches.

                    ï¿½ 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance:

                    "Beach" means (i) the shoreline zone comprised of unconsolidated sandy material upon
                    which there is a mutual interaction of the forces of erosion, sediment transport and
                    deposition that extends from the low water line landward to where there is a marked
                    change in either material composition or physiographic form such as a dune, bluff or
                    marsh, or (ii) where no such change can be identified, to the line of woody vegetation
                    (usually the effective limit of stormwaves), or the nearest impermeable man-made struc-
                    ture, such as a bulkhead, revetment or paved road.

                    "Commission" shall mean the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

                    "Commissioner" shall mean the Commissioner of the Virginia Marine Resources Com-
                    mission.


                    "County or city" shall mean the governing, body of such county or city.

                    "Coastal primary sand dune" hereinafter referred to as "dune," shall mean a mound of
                    unconsolidated sandy soil which is contiguous to mean high water, whose landward and
                    lateral limits are marked by a change in grade from ten percent or greater to less than
                    ten percent, and upon any part of which is growing on July 1, 1980, or grows thereon
                    subsequent thereto, any one or more of the following: American beach grass (Ammophil-
                    la breviligulata); beach heather (Hudsonia tometosa); dune bean (Strophostylis umbel-
                    lata var, paludigena); dusty miller (Artemisia stelleriana); saltmeadow hay (Spartina,
                    patens); seabeach sandwort (Arenaria peploides); sea oats (Uniola paniculata); sea rock-
                    et (Cakile edentula); seaside goldenrod (Solidago, sempervirens); and short dune grass
                    (Panicum amarum). For purposes of this ordinance, "coastal primary sand dune" shall
                    not include any mound of sand, sandy soil or dredge soil which has been deposited by
                    man for the purpose of the temporary storage of such material for later use.

                    "Governmental activity" shall mean any or all of the services provided by the Common-
                    wealth or a county or city to its citizens for the purpose of maintaining public facilities





              4






                                                                                                       Laws of Virginia



                            and shall include but not be limited to such services as constructing, repairing and
                            maintaining roads, sewage facilities, supplying and treating water, street lights and con-
                            structing public buildings.

                            "Wetlands board" or "board" means the board created as provided for in ï¿½ 62.1-13.6 of
                            the Code of Virginia.

                            ï¿½ 3. The following uses of and activities on dunes are permitted if otherwise permitted
                            by law:

                            A. The construction and maintenance of noncommercial walkways which do not alter
                            the contour of the coastal primary sand dune;

                            B. The construction and maintenance of observation platforms which are not an in-
                            tegral part of any dwelling and which do not alter the contour of the coastal primary
                            sand dune;

                            C. The planting of beach grasses or other vegetation for the purpose of stabilizing coas-
                            tal primary sand dunes;

                            D. The placement of sand fences or other material on or adjacent to coastal primary
                            sand dunes for the purpose of stabilizing such features, except that this provision shall
                            not be interpreted to authorize the placement of any material which presents a public
                            health or safety hazard;

                            E. Sand replenishment activities of any private or public concern provided no sand shall
                            be removed from any coastal primary sand dune unless authorized by lawful permit;

                            F. The normal maintenance of any groin, jetty, riprap, bulkhead or other structure
                            designed to control beach erosion which may abut a coastal primary sand dune;

                            G. The normal maintenance or repair of presently existing roads, highways, railroad
                            beds and facilities of the United States, this Commonwealth, or any of its counties or
                            cities, or those of any person, firm, corporation, or utility, provided no coastal primary
                            sand dunes are altered;


                            H. Outdoor recreational activities, provided that such activities do not alter the natural
                            contour of the coastal primary sand dune or destroy its vegetation;

                            1. The conservation and research activities of the Virginia Marine Resources Commis-
                            sion, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
                            and other related conservation agencies;

                            J. The construction and maintenance of aids to navigation which are authorized by
                            governmental authority;
     18

                                                                                                                        5






             Laws of Virginia




                   K Activities pursuant to any emergency declaration by the governing body of any local
                   government or the Governor of the Commonwealth or any public health officer for the
                   purposes of protecting the public health or safety; and

                   L. Governmental activity on coastal primary sand dunes owned or leased by the Com-
                   monwealth of Virginia or a political subdivision thereof.

                   ï¿½ 4. Any person who desires to use or alter any coastal primary sand dune within this
                   ..................... (county or city), other than for those activities specified in ï¿½ 3 herein, shall
                   first file an application with the wetlands board in accordance with ï¿½ 4 of ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 of
                   the Code of Virginia. The wetlands board may establish a processing fee in accordance
                   with ï¿½ 4 of ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 of the Code of Virginia. No person shall be required to file two
                   separate applications for permits if the project to be undertaken would require that a
                   permit be filed in accordance with ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 as well as this ordinance. Under such cir-
                   cumstances the fee accompanying the application required by ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 shall also be
                   the fee for the purpose of this ordinance.

                   ï¿½ 5. All applications and maps and documents relating thereto shall be open for public
                   inspection at the office of the recording officer of this ....................... (county or city).

                   ï¿½ 6. Not later than sixty days after receipt of such application, the wetlands board shall
                   hold a public hearing on such application. The applicant, the local governing body, the
                   Commissioner, the owner of record of any land adjacent to the coastal primary sand
                   dunes in question, known claimants of water rights in or adjacent to th     e coastal
                   primary sand dunes in question, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Depart-
                   ment of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Water Control Board, the Department of
                   Transportation and governmental agencies expressing an interest therein shall be
                   notified by the board of the hearing by mail not less than twenty days prior to the date
                   set for the hearing. The wetlands board shall also cause notice of such hearing to be pub-
                   lished at least once a week for two weeks prior to such hearing in the newspaper having
                   a general circulation in this ...................... (county or city). The costs of such publication
                   shall be paid by the applicant.

                   ï¿½ 7. In acting on any application for a permit, the board shall grant the application upon
                   the concurring vote of three memb,ers of a five-member board or four members of a
                   seven-member board. The chairman of the board, or in his absence the acting chairman,
                   may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. Any person may appear
                   and be heard at the public hearing. Each witness at the hearing may submit a concise
                   written statement of his testimony. The board shall make a record of the proceeding,
                   which shall include the application, any written statements of witnesses, a summary of
                   statements of all witnesses, the findings and decision of the board, and the rationale for
                   the decision. The board shall make its determination within thirty days from the hear-
                   ing. If the board fails to act within such time, the application shall be deemed approved.
                   Within forty-eight hours of its determination, the board shall notify the applicant and
                   the Commissioner of such determination and if the board has not made a determina-





             6






                                                                                                            Laws of Virginia



                              tion, it shall notify the applicant and the Commission that thirty days has passed and
                              that the application is deemed approved.

                              The board shall transmit a copy of the permit to the Commissioner. If the application is
                              reviewed or appealed, then the board shall transmit the record of its hearing to the
                              Commissioner. Upon a final determination by the Commission, the record shall be
                              returned to the board. The record shall be open for public inspection at the office of the
                              recording officer of this ........................ (county or city).

                              ï¿½ 8. The board may require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with
                              surety and conditions satisfactory to it securing to the Commonwealth compliance with
                              the conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The board may, after hearing as
                              provided herein, suspend or revoke a permit if the board finds that the applicant has
                              failed to comply with any of the conditions or limitations set forth in the permit or has
                              exceeded the scope of the work as set forth in the application. The board after hearing
                              may suspend a permit if the applicant fails to comply with the terms and conditions set
                              forth in the application.

                              ï¿½ 9. A. In making its decision whether to grant, to grant in modified form, or to deny an
                              application for a permit, the board shall base its decision on the following factors:

                              1. Such matters raised through the testimony of any person in support of or in rebuttal
                              to the permit application.

                              2. Impact of the development on the public health and welfare as expressed by the
                              policy and standards of Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of Title 62.1 of the Code of Vir-
                              ginia and any guidelines which may have been promulgated thereunder by the Commis-
                              sion.


                              B. If the board, in applying the standards above, finds that the anticipated public and
                              private benefit of the proposed activity exceeds the anticipated public and private detri-
                              ment and that the proposed activity would not violate the purposes and intent of Chap-
                              ter 2.2 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and of this ordinance, the board shall grant
                              the permit, subject to any reasonable condition or modification designed to minimize
                              the impact of the activity on the ability of this  .......................... (county or city), to pro-
                              vide governmental services and on the rights of any other person and to carry out the
                              public policy set forth in Chapter 2.2 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and in this or-
                              dinance. Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the right of any person
                              to seek compensation for any injury in fact incurred by him because of the proposed ac-
                              tivity. If the board finds that the anticipated public and private benefit from the
                              proposed activity is exceeded by the anticipated public and private detriment or that
                              the proposed activity would violate the purposes and intent of Chapter 2.2 of Title 62.1
                              of the Code of Virginia and of this ordinance, the board shall deny the permit applica-
                              tion with leave to the applicant to resubmit the application in modified form.





                                                                                                                               7






                 Laws of Virginia




                        ï¿½ 10. The permit shall be in writing, signed by the chairman of the board and notarized.

                        ï¿½ 11. No permit shall be granted without an expiration date, and the hdhrd, in the exer-
                        cise of its discretion, shall designate an expiration date for completion'*bf such work
                        specified in the permit from the date the board granted such permit. The board, how-
                        ever, may, upon proper application therefor, grant extensions. (1980, c. 660; 1984, c.
                        556; 1989, c. 342.)

                              The 1989 amendinent added the last two sentences of the first paragraph, added the last
                              sentence in ï¿½ 1, and in ï¿½ 2 added the paragraph def"ming "Beach," deleted the designations
                              of subdivisions A through F, and deleted former subdivision El, which defined "Reach."




                        ï¿½ 62.1-13.25:1: Not set out.


                              Editor's note. - This section, relating to emergency sand grading activities on sand dunes
                              located on the Atlantic Shoreline of Virginia Beach, was enacted by Acts 1984, c. 518. In
                              furtherance of the general policy of the Virginia Code Commission to include in the Code
                              only provisions having general and permanent application, this section, which is limited in
                              its purpose and scope, is not set out here, but attention is called to it by this reference.




                        ï¿½ 62.1-13.26. Permits required for certain activities; issuance of permits by
                        Commission. - No person shall conduct any activity which would require a permit
                        under a coastal primary sand dune ordinance unless he has a permit therefor. Until
                        such time as the county or city in which a person proposes to conduct an activity which
                        would require a permit under such ordinance adopts such ordinance, such person shall
                        apply for a permit directly to the Commission. (1980, c. 660.)




                        ï¿½ 62.1-13.27. Administration; appeals; enforcement. - In administering the
                        provisions of this chapter and in order to provide for appellate review and enforcement,
                        the Commission, Commissioner or wetlands board as appropriate shall, as to the Coas-
                        tal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act or an ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, bear
                        all those duties and responsibilities and follow those procedures specified in ï¿½ï¿½ 62. 1-
                        13.7 through 62.1-13.19 of the Code of Virginia in the same manner and on the same
                        basis as they administer and enforce the Wetlands Act or an ordinance adopted pur-
                        suant thereto. (1980, c. 660.)




                        ï¿½ 62.1-13.27:1. Penalties. - A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
                        this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or
                        fails, neglects or refuses to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule,




                 8






                                                                                                        Laws of Virginia



                            regulation or permit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an
   is                       appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day
                            of violation. Such civil penalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be
                            directed to be paid into the treasury of the county, city, or town in which the violation
                            occurred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wet-
                            lands therein, in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where
                            the violator is the county, city, or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the
                            penalty to be paid into the state treasury.

                            B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
                            consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated
                            or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board order, rule,
                            regulation, or permit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands
                            board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against
                            such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific
                            sums, not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any ap-
                            propriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civil
                            charges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or
                            a wetlands board. (1990, c. 811.)




                            ï¿½ 62.1-13.28. Exemptions. - A. Nothing in this chapter shall affect any project or
                            development (i) for which a valid building permit or final site plan approval has been is-
                            sued prior to July 1, 1980; or (ii) which, if no building permit is required for such project
                            including a locally approved mining operation, has been otherwise commenced prior to
                            July 1, 1980, and certified as exempt by the Commission or appropriate wetlands board;
                            or (iii) approved by the governing body of any county or city pursuant to any local or-
                            dinance whose principal purpose is to review development in coastal primary sand
                            dunes prior to July 1, 1980. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exclude from
                            regulation any activity which expands or enlarges upon a project already in existence or
                            under construction.


                            B. The Virginia Beach Wetlands Board shall make an ongoing determination in the
                            Sandbridge Beach subdivision of the area bounded on the north by Dam Neck Naval
                            Base, on the west by Sandfiddler Road, and on the south by White Cap Lane, to deter-
                            mine which structures or properties are in clear and imminent danger from erosion and
                            storm damage due to severe wave action or storm surge. The owners of structures or
                            properties so defined shall not be prohibited from erecting and maintaining protective
                            bulkheads or other equivalent structural improvements of a type, size and configuration
                            approved by the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board. The Virginia Beach Wetlands Board
                            shall not impose arbitrary or unreasonable conditions upon its approval of any such
                            bulkhead or other structural improvement but shall maintain a continuing respon-
                            sibility to ensure that each bulkhead or structural improvement constructed under the
                            authority of this section is maintained in a condition which is safe, structurally sound,



                                                                                                                         9






                Laws of Virginia



                      and otherwise in conformity with the reasonable conditions imposed by the Virginia
                      Beach Wetlands Board. At the time the application is submitted, the applicant shall con-
                      sent in writing to any subsequent construction which may occur whereby an adjacent
                      property owner desires to tie in a bulkhead at no additional cost with that bulkhead
                      proposed by the applicant. Such consent shall be considered a waiver 'of property line
                      defenses relating to the bulkhead line. (1980, c. 660; 1987, c. 499; 1.988, c. 740.)

                            Editor's note. - Acts 1988, c. 740, which amends this section, provides in cl. 2 that the act
                            shall expire on June 30, 1991.


                            The 1988 amendment deleted the fourth and fifth sentences, pertaining to written agree-
                            ments of adjacent property owners.























































               10









                                    Wetlands Guidelines



                                                             VJ RG-1 N 1A










                                                           Prepared by



                                          The Department of Wetlands Ecology
                                          Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                                                College of William and Mary



                                                                 and




                                           The Environmental Affairs Division
                                        Virginia Marine Resources Commission






                          Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.4, and in Amplification of Section 62.1-3, Code of Virginia






                                                                                                            Wetlands Guidelines




                       Table of Contents


                              Section I        Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

                              Section II       Wetlands Types and Properties          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

                                               Type I         Saltmarsh Cordgrass Community           . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

                                               TypeII         Saltmeadow Community          . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

                                               Type III       Black Needlerush Community          . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   13

                                               Type IV        Saltbush Community          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   15

                                               Type V         Big Cordgrass Community         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   17

                                               Type VI        Cattail Community       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   19

                                               Type VII       Arrow Arum-Pickerel Weed Community               . . . . . . . .  21

                                               Type VIII      Reed Grass Community          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   23

                                               Type IX        Yellow Pond Lily Community          . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   25

                                               Type X         Saltwort Community        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   27

                                               Type XI        Freshwater Mixed Community             .............              29

                                               Type XII       Brackish Water Mixed Community             ...........            31

                                               Type XIII      Intertidal Beach Community           ..............               33

                                               Type XIV       Sand Flat Community         ..................                    34

                                               Type XV        Sand/Mud Mixed Flat Community              ...........            35

                                               Type XVI       Mud Flat Community          ..................                    36

                                               Type XVII      Intertidal Oyster Reef Community           ...........            37

                              Section III      Evaluation of Wetlands Types         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   38

                              Section IV       Criteria for Evaluating Alterations of Wetlands           . . . . . . . . . . .  41

                              Glossary    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   55





                                                                                                                                    3







             Wetlands Guidelines



             Section I


                  Introduction


                  Virginia's coastal zone is composed of many different but highly interrelated ecological
                  systems. Below the low tide limits are found the vast areas of submerged bottomland
                  which are vitally important as fish and shellfish feeding, spawning and nursery habitat.
                  These areas not only help support Virginia's highly valuable commercial catch but also
                  the myriad of species which the average Virginian never directly encounters but never-
                  theless are as important ecologically as the commercially sought organisms.

                  Between the high water line and the low water line are found the nonvegetated inter-
                  tidal flats and beaches. These areas, though uncovered and seemingly devoid of life
                  during a portion of each tidal cycle, provide important habitat for a host of different
                  marine organisms, aquatic birds and many mammals.

                  Beginning approximately at the elevation we call mean sea level are found the various
                  vegetated communities known as marshes. Best known for their high plant production
                  on the order of tons per acre per year, marshes have other valuable functions. They are
                  a buffer between the estuary and the upland; interacting with both.

                  With the passage of House Bill 400, which adds nonvegetated intertidal areas to the ex-
                  isting wetlands protection mechanism, the General Assembly has not only recognized
                  the value of intertidal flats and beaches to the Commonwealth but also the interrelated
                  and interdependent nature of the vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands systems. All
                  wetland resources of the Commonwealth will now be managed under a single, unified
                  program. Moving landward from mean low water (the Marine Resources Commission
                  controls the bottomland seaward of mean low water) wetland jurisdiction now extends
                  to mean high water where no emergent vegetation exists, and to 1.5 times the mean
                  tide range where marsh is present. All intertidal areas are now called wetlands and can
                  be managed holistically under a single permit system.

                  The purpose of this document is to revise the existing Wetlands Guidelines, which deal
                  only with marshes, to include beaches, tidal flats and subaqueous lands as well. Al-
                  though scientific research has yet to clearly define and quantify all aspects of wetlands
                  function and importance within the estuary, there are few in the scientific community
                  who would argue that these areas are not highly significant systems whose conserva-
                  tion is very important to the Commonwealth. The policy stated by the legislature when
                  it passed the vegetated wetlands act in 1972 is as relevant today as it was then:

                       "Therefore, in order to protect the public interest, promote the public
                       health, safety and the economic and general welfare of the
                       Commonwealth, and to protect public and private property, wildlife,




            4







                                                                                                 Wetlands Guidelines




                                marine fisheries and the natural environment, it is declared to be the
                                public policy of this Commonwealth to preserve the wetlands, and to
                                prevent their despoliation and destruction and to accommodate
                                necessary economic development in a manner consistent with wetlands
                                preservation."

                           In the pages that follow, the value of the wetlands to the Commonwealth and its
                           citizens is described. This is followed by a brief description of each community type and
                           then by an environmental value ranking system. In this section the community types
                           are ranked relative to each other according to their environmental values. It should be
                           noted that all wetlands are important but where management decisions must be made
                           regarding necessary economic development in wetlands, this ranking system may help
                           in guiding development into the lesser value wetland communities.

                           The ranking system is followed by the general and specific guidelines for wetland dis-
                           turbing activities. These guidelines have been expanded to cover the nonvegetated area
                           and to deal with issues that have arisen since the adoption of the original guidelines in
                           1974. it is intended that these guidelines aid wetland managers in preserving the wet-
                           lands while accommodating necessary economic development along Virginiws 5000
                           miles of shoreline.


                      Section Il


                           Wetlands Types and Properties


                           Wetlands, as defined in Chapter 2.1 of the Code of Virginia, fall into two major group-
                           ings: vegetated (tidal marshes and swamps) and nonvegetated (intertidal flats, bars and
                           beaches). Although seldom recognized by the general public except as exhibited in the
                           desire to live on or near the water, wetlands have a variety of both tangible and intan-
                           gible values which place them in a position of inestimable importance to the Common-
                           wealth.


                           This section of this document first identifies the primary values of the wetlands, then
                           describes the general wetland types found in "Tidewater" Virginia, and finally ranks
                           these types relative to each other in terms of these primary values.

                           Each wetland type is evaluated in accordance with five general values.

                           These are:


                           1. Production and detritus availability. Marshes and tidal flats are major site$ of
                              primary production in the marine ecosystem. When this plant material dies and





                                                                                                                     5







             Wetlands Guidelines




                     begins to decay (detritus) it becomes the basis of a major marine food pathway. The
                     productivity of all the major marsh community types is well documented and ranges
                     from one to six tons per acre per year. Generally, the lower the elevation of the
                     marsh, the greater its contribution of detritus and the greater its value to the
                     aquatic environment.

                     Plant productivity on tidal flats is typically less than that of tidal marshes but
                     higher than the bottom in deeper open water areas due to the greater supply of light
                     and nutrients available. Plant productivity in intertidal areas is dominated by non-
                     vascular plants (bottom-dwelling, one-celled micro- and macroalgae). Probably the
                     most important function of the nonvegetated wetlands is that of mediating the break-
                     down of detritus produced on the vegetated marshes. Tidal flats located adjacent to
                     extensive marsh areas may therefore be more biologically valuable than more iso-
                     lated tidal flats. As mediators of detrital breakdown, nonvegetated wetlands are
                     often the sites of large, diverse invertebrate populations and are often major feeding
                     sites and spawning and nursery grounds for estuarine organisms of sport and com-
                     mercial value to man.


                  2. Waterfowl and Wildlife Utilization. Long before wetlands were discovered to be
                     detritus producers and feeding areas for marine organisms, they were known as rich
                     habitats for various mammals, marine birds and migratory waterfowl. Some wet-
                     land types are more important than others in this regard but in many cases distinc-
                     tions may not be clear-cut. A species, for example, may appear to be dependent on
                     vegetated marsh for cover and breeding but without the adjacent tidal flats may not
                     use a certain marsh at all. Wetlands offering a variety of habitats and plant types
                     are generally the more valuable from a habitat perspective.

                  3. Erosion Buffer. Erosion is a common problem throughout coastal Virginia and is
                     by no means limited to ocean beaches. Vegetated wetlands do erode but by virtue of
                     their ability to establish dense root systems, trap and accumulate sediments, and
                     baffle wave energy they are buffers against erosion and sea level rise. Among the
                     vegetated wetlands the freshwater communities are less effective in this regard.

                     Nonvegetated wetlands are also effective erosion buffers although they function in a
                     different manner from the marshes. For example, a broad, gently sloping sand beach
                     is an excellent wave energy dissipator and large interfidal bars and flats serve to
                     "trip" waves as they move shoreward thus reducing their energy before they strike
                     the shoreline. The disruption of nearsbore intertidal areas may increase wave ener-
                     gy striking the adjacent shoreline thus accelerating erosion there.

                  4. Water Quality Control. The dense growth of some marshes acts as a filter, trap-
                     ping upland sediment before it reaches waterways and thus protecting shellfish beds
                     and navigation channels from siltation. Marshes can also filter out sediments that
                     are already in the water column. The ability of marshes to filter sediments and main-
                     tain water clarity is of particular importance to the maintenance of clam and oyster




            6







                                                                                               Wetlands Guidelines




                              production. Some marshes have been shown to act as sinks or traps for other pol-
                              lutants and marsh plants take up nutrients deposited in marsh soils. Excess
                              nutrient levels in an estuary can be a problem but the exact role of marshes in
                              nutrient removal is not yet fully understood.

                              Nonvegetated wetlands are also important in the cycling of nutrients in the estuary
                              and the filter feeding organisms present, particularly on tidal flats, remove
                              suspended solids from the water column in amounts that may significantly affect
                              water clarity.

                          5.  Flood Buffer. The peat substratum of some marshes acts as a giant sponge in
                              receiving and releasing water. This characteristic is an effective buffer against coas-
                              tal flooding, the effectiveness of which is a function of marsh type and size. The
                              higher elevation marshes are the more effective flood buffers. Nonvegetated wet-
                              lands, because of their intertidal location have little value in this regard.

                          The following descriptions of wetland community types are identified and presented for
                          management purposes. The first twelve of these are the vegetated wetlands and of
                          these the first ten are characterized by a single dominant species of emergent vegeta-
                          tion. The term "dominant" is defined here to mean at least 50% of the vegetated surface
                          of the marsh is covered by a single plant species. Types eleven and twelve are brackish
                          and freshwater marshes which have no clearly dominant species of vegetation.

                          The five types of nonvegetated wetlands described here are identified mainly by
                          physiographic position and sediment composition. No attempt is made to quantitatively
                          separate the communities by particle size dominance since this is not necessary for
                          value judgements on the level described in this publication.




















   40

                                                                                                                  7







           Wetlands Guidelines






















                                                                              a




                           3

                          to
                           6
                          feet
                         high















                                                             SALTMARSH CORDGRASS
                                                                 Spartina alterniflora







                                               -41W



                                                a. Branch of fruiting head.







          8







                                                                                              Wetlands Guidelines



                    Type 1. Saltmarsh Cordgrass Community


                         Dominant vegetation: Saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora Loisel).

                         Associated vegetation: Saltmeadow hay, saltgrass, black needlerush, saltwort, sea
                                 lavender, marsh elder, groundsel tree, sea oxeye.

                         Growth habit: Stout, erect grass; long, smooth leaves, often with attached periwinkle
                                 snails; located at the waters edge. Tall form 4 to 6 feet along the water; short
                                 form 1 to 2 feet at or slightly higher than MHW.

                         Physiographic position: Ranges from mean sea level to approximately mean high
                                 water.


                         Average density: Usually 20 plants per square foot. Can range from 10 to 50 plants.

                         Annual production and detritus availability: Average yield is about 4 tons per
                                 acre per annum; optimum growth up to 10 tons per acre. Daily tides flux nearly
                                 throughout this community. Available detritus to the marine environment is op-
                                 timum. This type of marsh is recognized as an important spawning and nursery
                                 ground for fish.

                         Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Roots and rhizomes eaten by waterfowl. Stems used
                                 in muskrat lodge construction. Nesting material for Forsters tern, clapper rail
                                 and willet.


                         Potential erosion buffer- Most saltmarshes and brackish water marshes are bor-
                                 dered by saltmarsh cordgrass along the waters edge. A marsh/water interface of
                                 this type is highly desirable as a deterrent to shoreline erosion. Underlying peat
                                 with a vast network of rhizomes and roots is very resistant to wave energy.

                         Water quality control and flood buffer: Marshes of this type can also serve as traps
                                 for sediment that originate from upland runoff. This also includes large debris
                                 that may accumulate on the marsh surface.

                         SUMNMY: Considering the many attributes of this type of marsh community, its con-
                                 servation should be of highest priority.













                                                                                                                  9







        Wetlands Guidelines

























      1 to 3                                1 to 3
       feet                                 feet
      high                        b         high





                          SALTMEADOW HAY                  SALT GRASS
                                 or
                       SALTMEADOW CORDGRASS              Distichlis spicata

                            Sparlina patens
                                                a. Trough-shaped leaves (rolled inward).
                                                b. Leaves arranged in one plane.
           a. Branch with flowers.              c. Flowering or fruiting head.
           b. Leaves arranged in 3 or more planes.
           c. Flowering or fruiting head.
                                                           c























































        10






                                                                                           Wetlands Guidelines



                   Type IL Saltmeadow Community


                         Dominant vegetation: Saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens (L.) Greene) SaItgrass (Dis-
                                tichlis spicata (L.) Greene).

                         Associated vegetation: Saltmarsh cordgrass, black needlerush, marsh elder,
                                groundsel tree, saltwort, sea oxeye.

                         Growth habit: Matted meadow-like stands with swirls or "cowlicks", individual plants
                                wiry in appearance; saltgrass 1-2 feet high.

                         Physiographic position: About mean high tide to the limit of spring tides; saltgrass
                                at lower elevations, saltmeadow hay predominates at the higher end of the

                                range.


                         Average density: Mixed populations; 50-150 stems per square foot.

                         Annual production and detritus availability: Ranges from 1-3 tons per acre
                                annum. Only small amounts of dead plant material are flushed out during
                                storms and spring tides.

                         Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Seeds eaten by birds; provides nesting area. Habitat
                                for a snail (Melampus) important as food for birds.

                         Potential erosion buffer: Effective erosion deterrent at higher elevations.

                         Water quality control and flood buffer- In many cases, this community represents
                                the oldest part of a marsh system. Peat may accumulate to great depths,
                                making this type of marsh act as a giant sponge when flood waters wash over it.
                                Denseness of vegetation and deep peat filter sediments and waste material.

                         SUBINLARY- This system is an excellent buffer, filtering out sediments and wastes and
                                absorbing runoff water originating in the uplands. Production and detritus are
                                less important to the marine environment than in Type I communities. Its con-
                                tributions tend to favor the upland environment. Its values rank somewhat
                                below Type I but, nevertheless, a Type II marsh should not be unnecessarily dis-
                                turbed.







           Wetlands Guidelines




                                                                                                               0

                           -                             ---- low

















                                                          i






                    3
                    to
                    4
                   feet
                  .high                                                                                        0





                                                                                 kO b




                                                                 NEEDLERUSH


                                                               Juncus roemerianus


                     L               -


                                       a. Fruiting head.
                                       b. Stem round in cross section.



                                                                                                               0

           12






                                                                                            Wetlands Guidelines



                    Type III. Black Needlerush Community


                         Dominant vegetation: Black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus Scheele.)

                         Associated vegetation: Usually pure stands with saltmarsh cordgrass, saltgrass and
                                 saltmeadow hay near the margin.

                         Growth habit: Dense monospecific stands; plant leafless, cylindrical hard stems taper-
                                 ing to a sharp pointed tip; brown to dark green in color, 3 to 5 feet high.

                         Physiographic position: About mean high water to somewhat below spring tide
                                 limit. Seems to prefer sandy substratum.

                         Average density: 30 to 50 stems per square foot.

                         Annual production and detritus availability: 3 to 5 tons per acre per annum,
                                 decomposes more slowly than most of the marsh grasses. Not flushed daily by
                                 tides.


                         Waterfowl and wildlife utility: There is no evidence that waterfowl or wildlife util-
                                 ize this type of plant directly as a food. Because of the dense, stiff stands, it has
                                 little wildlife value except for limited cover.

                         Potential erosion buffer. The dense system of rhizomes and roots of black
                                 needlerush are highly resistant to erosion. On sandy shores and low sand berms
                                 which support this community type, this characteristic is of high value.

                         Water quality control and flood buffer. An effective trap for suspended sediments,
                                 but less effective than the densely matted saltmeadow community. Provides ef-
                                 fective absorbent areas to buffer coastal flooding.

                         SUBEVIARY: As a single monospecific community this type would support less wildlife
                                 diversity than Type I and II. It functions well as a sediment trap and erosion
                                 deterrent but ranks lower than the preceeding types. The rhizomes of black
                                 needlerush are harder and tougher than the grasses that dominate Types I and
                                 II communities; therefore, needlerush is useful as an erosion deterrent. Overall,
                                 the values of this marsh type rank below Types I and II.













                                                                                                               13







             Wetlands Guidelines





















                                    3 to 10 feet high
                                                                                      *a




                                                                                   3 to 10 feet high

                                           a


                                                                                              b
                                      b


                                MARSH ELDER                                    GROUNDSELTREE


                                 Iva frutescens                                Baccharis hamilifolia



               a. Leaves thick and fleshy.                            a. Fruiting head.
               b. Leaves opposite each other on the stem.             b. Leaves alternate.














            14







                                                                                             Wetlands Guidelines



                      Type IV. Saltbush (GaRbush) Community

                           Dominant vegetation: Groundsel tree, highwater bush (Baccharis halimifolia L.),
                                   marsh elder saltwater bush (Iva frutescens L.)

                           Associated vegetation: Saltmeadow hay, saltgrass, wax myrtle, sea oxeye.

                           Growth habit- Shrubs 3 to 10 feet high along the margin of the marsh and upland
                                   plant communities.

                           Physiographic position: Lower limit is approximately the upper limit of marsh
                                   (marsh-upland ecotone).

                           Average density: May provide dense canopy over marsh. Individual shrub trunks
                                   usually spaced 3 to 10 feet apart.

                           Annual production and detritus availability- Probably less than 2 tons per acre
                                   per annum. Detritus of little value.

                           Waterfowl and wildlife utility- Provides diversity for wildlife in general and espe-
                                   cially as a nesting area for small birds. No significant food value.

                           Potential erosion buffer: Although not structurally suited as an assimilator of sedi-
                                   ment and flood waters, it serves somewhat as a buffer to erosion on sand berms
                                   that often front small pocket marshes. Also functional as a trap for larger flot-

                                   sam.


                           Water quality control and flood buffer: Of minor consequence, but does trap larger
                                   material. (See above).


                           SUMMARY: Useful as an indicator of upper limits of marshes as defined in the Wet-
                                   lands Act. Values of this type rank below that of the preceding types. However,
                                   this community does add diversity to the marsh ecosystem.

















                                                                                                               15







            Wetlands Guidelines




                                                                                                                   0





                                                        r





                                                                                a



                            1
                            6
                            to
                            10
                           feet
                           high
                                                                                                                  0







                                                                   BIG CORDGRASS


                                                                 Spartina cynosuroides






                                                   I
                                                   11
                             1     -            -1ww


                                                 a. Branch of fruiting head.
                                                                  )a


                                                                                                                  0

           16







                                                                                            Wetlands Guidelines



                    Type V. Big Cordgrass Community


                          Dominant vegetation: Big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides (L.) Roth.)

                          Associated vegetation: Usually pure stands.

                          Growth habit: Very tall (6-12 feet), heavily stemmed, leafy grass with distinct
                                 branched fruiting head in the fall.

                          Physiographic position: At or slightly above mean high water and extending to the
                                 upland margin. Most common in brackish or lower salinity marshes.

                          Average density: 10 to 15 stems per square foot.

                          Annual production and detritus availability: 3 to 6 tons per acre per annum.
                                 Detritus accessible only on spring or wind tide, however is rivaled only by
                                 saltmarsh cordgrass, which gives big cordgrass a higher value in the context of
                                 production than other grasses found above mean high tide. Decomposes more
                                 slowly than saltmarsh cordgrass.

                          Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Utilized as a habitat by small animals, often used for
                                 muskrat lodges. Geese often eat its rhizomes.

                          Potential erosion buffer: The large, coarse rhizomes and intertwining roots stabilize
                                 peat along marsh edges.

                          Water quality control and flood buffer: Usually this community type occupies the
                                 older parts of a marsh system where peat may be deeper increasing its capacity
                                 as a flood water assimilator. It is also useful in trapping flotsam.

                          SUMMARY- Although the elevation occupied by this community type is similar to that
                                 of the saltmeadow community, big cordgrass has a much higher yield of organic
                                 matter which likely contributes to the marine food web. It is also relatively high
                                 in value as a wildlife food as well as a buffer to erosion.





















                                                                                                              17







            Wetlands Guidelines























                                                                      7





                                                                            dr









                      NARROW-LEAVED CATrAIL


                            Typha angustifolia



                           COMMON CAITAIL                         a             b


                              Typha latifolia




                           a. Narrow-leaved cattail (Flower and fruiting head).
                           b. Common cattail (Flower and fruiting head).



                           Illustrations after Fassett, A Manual of Aquatic Plants.









           18







                                                                                             Wetlands Guidelines




                     Type V1. Cattail Community


                          Dominant vegetation: Narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia L.)

                          Associated vegetation: Broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia L.), sedges, bulrushes,
                                  arrow arum, pickerel weed, smartweed, other fresh or brackish water plants.

                          Growth habit: Characteristic "Wiener on a stick" fruiting heads, long strap-like
                                  leaves, somewhat blunted tips. 4 to 6 feet tall.

                          Physiographic position: Very wet sites, sometimes in standing water, often at the
                                  margin of marsh and uplands. Does well in seepage areas resulting from upland
                                  runoff.


                          Average density: 2 to 6 stalks per square foot.

                          Annual production and detritus availability: 2 to 4 tons per acre. Detritus usually
                                  not readily accessible to the marine environment.

                          Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Provides habitat for certain birds; roots consumed by
                                  muskrats.


                          Potential erosion buffer. Because of its preferred habitat and its characteristic shal-
                                  low root system, Type VI is only a minor buffer to erosion.

                          Water quality control and flood buffer: Its usual habitat along the upland margins
                                  in soft muddy areas ranks this marsh type high as a sediment trap despite its
                                  shallow rooted condition. Very few species will grow in these areas either be-
                                  cause of the stagnant condition of the substratum or because they are inhibited
                                  by toxin release of the cattail roots or a combination of the two factors.

                          SUMMARY: Because of its value as a wildlife food and habitat, its function as a sedi-
                                  ment trap, its relatively high production and the usual soft substratum, this
                                  type of marsh community should not be indiscriminately used as a development
                                  site. As far as overall value is concerned it compares with a saltmeadow marsh
                                  (Type II).















                                                                                                                19







            Wetlands Guidelines






















                                        a




                                       PICKEREL WEED


                                       Pontederia cordata                            a



                             a. Blue flower head.








                                                                                        b

                 Arrowhead     A@ow Pickerel                         ARROWARUM
                               Arum      Weed                       Peltandra virginica


                                                                    a. Flower head.
                                                                   b. Fruiting head.













           20







                                                                                              Wetlands Guidelines



                     Type VIL Arrow Arum-Pickerel Weed Community


                           Dominant vegetation: Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica (L.) Kunth.) Pickerel weed
                                  Pontederia cordata L.)


                           Associated vegetation: Sedges, smartweeds, bulrushes, ferns, cattails, pond lily.

                           Growth habit: Many broad leaved clumps growing from a thick, cylindrical rhizome;
                                  arrow or heart shaped leaves. Clumps 2 to 6 feet tall, average height 3 feet.

                           Physiographic position: On tidal mud flats from mean sea level to about mean high
                                  tide in low salinity or freshwater marshes.

                           Average density: 1 or 2 clumps per 10 square feet.

                           Annual production and detritus availability: 2 to 4 tons per acre. Detritus readily
                                  available to the marine food web because of daily tide fluxes. In the fall of the
                                  year these species decompose quite rapidly and completely except for the root
                                  stock.


                           Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Seeds and shoots of both species are eaten by ducks.
                                  Arrow arum seeds float after the pod decays and are readily available for wood
                                  ducks. Often associated with confirmed spawning and nursery areas for herring
                                  and shad.


                           Potential erosion buffer. Although this community type lacks the vast network of
                                  rhizomes, roots and peat substratum typical of a saltmarsh cordgrass com-
                                  munity, this marsh/water interface vegetation is often the only vegetative buffer
                                  to shoreline erosion in freshwater areas. The substratum in a marsh such as
                                  this is typically often, unstable mud. After the vegetation has decayed in the
                                  winter time, the mud flats are highly susceptible to erosion due to winter rains.

                           Water quality control and flood buffer- Slows the flow of flood waters, causing
                                  some suspended sediment to settle out.

                           SUM51ARY- Under natural conditions the marsh of this type is relatively stable but is
                                  highly sensitive to development and activities such as excessive boat traffic. Be-
                                  cause of its many attributes this marsh ranks similar to that of Type 1.












                                                                                                                21







            Wetlands Guidelines
















































                                                                             REED GRASS


                                                                          Phragmites australis

                                           a








                                           a. Stand in winter condition, without leaves.









            22







                                                                                             Wetlands Guidelines



                     Type VIII. Reed Grass Community


                           Dominant vegetation: Reed grass (Phragmites australis) formerly (Phragmites com-
                                  munes Trinius)


                           Associated species: Switch grass, saltbushes, a few others.

                           Growth habit: Tall stiff grass with short, wide leaves tapering abruptly to a point;
                                  soft plume-like seed head. 6 to 10 feet high.

                           Physiographic position: Usually above mean high tide, drier areas on disturbed
                                  sites.


                           Average density: 3 to 6 stems per square foot.

                           Annual production and detritus availability: 4 to 6 tons per acre, detritus seldom
                                  available except in storm conditions.

                           Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Little direct value to wildlife except as cover. May
                                  have a detrimental effect in that it can invade areas of a marsh and compete
                                  with desirable species. It appears to be replacing big cordgrass and other plants
                                  in freshwater marshes of the Pamunkey River.

                           Potential erosion buffer- Good erosion deterrent on disturbed sites, especially on
                                  spoil.

                           Water quality control and flood buffer- Valuable as a buffer to erosion. Potential
                                  as sediment trap and flood deterrent appears to be minimal.

                           SUMMARY- This plant is a relatively recent invader in Virginia but is spreading rapid-
                                  ly, often displacing more important marsh plants. It has little or no value to
                                  wildlife in general. Its only important value would be its function as a stabilizer
                                  on dredge spoil. This community type ranks below a Type III marsh, the black
                                  needlerush community.

















                                                                                                                23







           Wetlands Guidelines













































                                                                 YELLOW POND LILY


                                                                    Nuphar advena
                                    a










                            a. Leaf sear.














          24







                                                                                                Wetlands Guidelines



                     Type IX. YeHow Pond Lily Community

                           Dominant vegetation: Yellow pond lily, spatter-dock (Nuphar luteum (L. Sibthrop
                                   and Smith)


                           Associated vegetation: Pickerel weed, arrow arum.

                           Growth habit: Saucer shaped leaves with a narrow notch, floating on water; large,
                                   leathery yellow flower. 2 to 4 feet high from submerged root stalk.

                           Physiographic position: Submerged except for floating leaves at high tide. Found in
                                   freshwater areas.


                           Average density: One plant (cluster of leaves) for every 3 to 5 square feet.

                           Annual production and detritus availability: To 1 ton per acre; detritus readily
                                   available but not a significant contributor to the food chain.

                           Waterfowl utility: Excellent cover and attachment site for aquatic animals and algae.
                                   Feeding territory for aquatic birds and fish.

                           Potential erosion buffer- While lacking the stiffness of grasses and sedges, these
                                   plants do reduce wave action from wind and boats. This has been noted in fresh-
                                   water streams and boat channels.


                           Water quality control and flood buffer- Although not a direct assimilator of sedi-
                                   ments and flood waters, the flow of flood water is slowed somewhat and sedi-
                                   ments can settle out. This function is minimal-because the community is
                                   submerged completely in flood conditions.

                           SUMNIARY- Destruction of the community would result in a decrease in number and
                                   diversity of aquatic animal life in the immediate area. The greatest value the
                                   community has is its habitat for aquatic biota. This type should be ranked with
                                   or slightly higher than a Type III (black needlerush) marsh.

















                                                                                                                  25







           Wetlands Guidelines




                                                                                                             0













                                                       I
                                                                                                             0






                                                        ..             SALTWORT


                                                                      Salicornia sp.
                                                       I















                                                                                                            0

    $     26






                                                                                             Wetlands Guidelines



                     Type X. Saltwort Community


                           Dominant vegetation: Saltwort, glasswort (Salicornia sp.)

                           Associated vegetation: Saltmarsh cordgrass, saltgrass, sea lavender.

                           Growth habit: Leafless green fleshy-stemmed plant, red in color in fall; 8 inches to 1
                                   feet tall.


                           Physiographic position: Above mean high tide in pannes or sparsely vegetated areas.

                           Average density: 10 to 15 stems per square foot.

                           Annual production and detritus availability: Less than 1/2 ton per acre. Exerts
                                   very little influence on the marine environment.

                           Wildlife and waterfowl utility: Some evidence that stems are eaten by ducks. May
                                   be a feeding area for other marsh birds.

                           Potential erosion buffer- Has very little value as an erosion deterrent.

                           Water quality control and flood buffer: Because of the character of the stem, a shal-
                                   low root system and the usual small sizes of the populations, these community
                                   types have little or no value in this category.

                           SUMALARY. This community is not high in value. It usually occupies small areas
                                   within larger more productive marshes and can be used as an indicator of
                                   higher marsh elevations.




















   40

                                                                                                               27







         Wetlands Guidelines














                                   FRESHWATER MIXED COMMUNITY TYPE XI


                                     (excluding upland species - pines, cedars, etc.)


















               BUTTONBUSH                                    YELLOW POND LILY
                                                                  TYPEIX

              BIG CORDGRASS
                  TYPE V                                      ARROW ARUM and
                                                               PICKEREL WEED
                 WILD RICE                                        TYPE VII

                  CATTAIL                                      SMARTWEED and
                  TYPEVI                                        WATERDOCK

             SWAMP MILKWEED                                       SEDGES
                                                   @VIAR
                                                               P11




                                                               S1






















        28







                                                                                                Wetlands Guidelines



                       Type XI. Freshwater Mixed Community


                            Dominant vegetation: No single species covers more than 50% of the site.

                            Associated vegetation: Bulrushes, sedges, waterdock, smartweeds, ferns, pickerel
                                    weed, arrow arum, wildrice beggar's ticks, rice cutgrass.

                            Growth habit: Heterogeneous mixture of plants.

                            Physiographic position: From submerged to the upper limits of the wetlands.

                            Average density: Highly variable.

                            Annual production and detritus availability: 3 to 5 tons per acre. Detritus of
                                    species such as arrow arum, pickerel weed and yellow pond lily would be avail-
                                    able in the intertidal zone.


                            Waterfowl and wildlife utility: A highly valuable marsh for a broad diversity in
                                    wildlife species. Plant species such as smartweeds, waterdock, wildrice and
                                    others are prime waterfowl and sora rail foods. Waters adjacent to these type
                                    marshes are also known as spawning and nursery grounds for striped bass,
                                    shad and river herring.

                            Potential erosion buffer. Shoreline erosion protection provided by this type of marsh
                                    is equivalent to Type VII, arrow arum - pickerel weed community.

                            Water quality control and flood buffer- This ranks somewhat higher as a sediment
                                    trap and flood deterrent than an arrow arum - pickerel weed community. The
                                    presence of the stiffer, more resilient grasses, sedges and rushes and peaty-type
                                    substratum increases the ability of this type of community over a Type VII
                                    marsh as an assimilator of sediments and flood waters.


                            SUMMARY- These are very valuable marshes and the aim should be to keep them in a
                                    natural state. This type of marsh would be ranked equivalent to a saltmarsh
                                    cordgrass marsh (Type I) and an arrow arum - pickerel weed (Type VII) marsh.
















                                                                                                                   29







          Wetlands Guidelines















                                    BRACKISH WATER MIXED COMMUNITY TYPE XII


                                        (excluding upland species - pines, cedars, etc.)





















                 SALTBUSH                                  SALTMARSH CORDGRASS
                   TYPEIV                                          TYPEI


              BIG CORDGRASS                                  BLACKNEEDLERUSH
                  TYPE V                                          TYPE III


            SALTGRASS MEADOW                                SALTMARSH BULRUSH
                   TYPEII
                                                            OLNEY THREESQUARE
               SEALAVENDER
                                                I L14







          30







                                                                                           Wetlands Guidelines



                    Type XII. Brackish Water Mixed Community


                          Dominant vegetation: No single species covers more than 50% of the site.

                          Associated vegetation: Saltmarsh cordgrass, saltmeadow hay, saltgrass, black need-
                                 lerush, saltbushes, threesquares, big cordgrass, cattails.

                          Growth habit: Heterogeneous mixture of plants in wet areas.

                          Physiographic position: Extending from about mean sea level to the upland margin.

                          Average density: Highly variable.

                          Annual productivity and detritus availability: 3 to 4 tons per acre, detritus readi-
                                 ly available in the intertidal zone.

                          Waterfowl and wildlife utility: Wide diversity of vegetation provides a variety of
                                 wildlife food. Waterfowl foods are plentiful, such as the generous seed heads of
                                 saltmarsh bulrush.


                          Potential erosion buffer. Shoreline erosion protection is the same as that of a Type I
                                 marsh (saltmarsh cordgrass). Most brackish water marshes are bordered by
                                 saltmarsh cordgrass.

                          Water quality control and flood buffer. Ranks high in this category, having similar
                                 attributes as a Type 11 marsh (saltmeadow).

                          SUMMARY: This marsh is a microcosm of all the communities found in saline waters.
                                 Brackish water marshes are known spawning and nursery grounds. This com-
                                 munity type contains valuable food and habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife
                                 species. Ranks with a Type I (saltmarsh cordgrass) marsh.




















                                                                                                             31







              Wetlands Guidelines










                                       DOMINANT BENTHIC SPECIES OF THE
                                    NON-VEGETATED WETLAND COMMUNITIES



                           HiTERTIDALBEACH                  TIDALFLAT             [iN@RTIDAL OYSTER REEF
                             COADIMTY                       COASUMITY                     COhBfLTNrrY


        SEDIMENTTYPE           SAND             SAND         SAND/MUD          MUD             SHELL


          DOMINANT          AMPHIPODS        AMPHIPODS      MUD SNAILS     MUD SNAILS         OYSTERS
           SPECIES          MOLE CRABS       BLOODWORMS     SOFTCLAMS      BLOODWORMS        HARD CLAMS
                           DONAXCLAMS        SOFTCLAMS      RAZOR CLAMS    RAZOR CLAMS    CURVED MUSSELS
                                             RAZOR CLAMS   SPIONID WORMS  SPIONIDWORMS       AMPHIPODS
                                             SANDWORMS      HARD CLAMS                       MUD CRABS









                  A. ciio BL         c                                  R

                                            D.                      G.              K




          SPECIES           A. MOLE CRAB (Enwrita talpoida)             G. DONAX CLAM (Donaxuariabilius)
           INDEX            B. HAUSTORID AMPHIPOD (Parahaustorius)      H. MUD SNAIL (11yanassa obsokta)
                            C. HAUSTORID AMPHIPOD (Protohaustorius)     I. BLOODWORM (Glycera dibranchiata)
                            D. SANDWORM (Nereidpolycheate)              J. CURVED MUSSEL (Isochodiummurum)
                            E. SOFT CLAM (Mya arenaria)                 K. RAZOR CLAM (Tagelusplubeus)
                            F. SPIONID WORM (Po@ydora ligni)            L. OYSTER (Crassostrea virginioa)
                                                                 rG
                                                                           jr





























              32







                                                                                         Wetlands Guidelines




                    Type X111. Intertidal Beach Community


                         Dominant species: Ocean Beach - Mole crabs, Donax clam, Haustorid amphipods
                                              Bay Beach - Haustorid amphipods, oligochaete worms, beach fleas

                         Associated species: Ghost crabs, polychaete worms, razor clams

                         Growth habit: Most organisms buried just below the sand surface. Constantly being
                                uncovered by waves and burrowing back into sand. Most species are annuals.

                         Average density: Highly variable, animals move up and down beach with tide level.
                                In warmer months densities can average 100 to 5000 individualSIM2 . Annual
                                production is very high.

                         Primary production and nutrient cycling: Relatively low compared to marshes
                                and tidal flats because of high wave energy.

                         Habitat value: Very important foraging area for many shorebirds areas above mean
                                high water are used as nesting sites by terns and skimmers. Fish utilize area
                                for feeding during high tide.

                         Erosion buffer: Beach is an ideal natural wave-energy dissipator. It interacts with
                                nearshore sand bars and du'nes. Its most important ecological function to man is
                                to buffer the effects of storm waves.


                         SUAUYLARY- Beach systems deserve the highest order of protection particularly when
                                associated with extensive dunes and nearshore sandbars.





























                                                                                                          33







            Wetlands Guidelines



            Type XW. Sand Flat Community


                 Dominant species: Sandworm, bloodworm, amphipods, soft clams, razor clams.

                 Associated species: Other polychaete worms, mollusks and phoronid worms.

                 Growth habit: Most of the inhabitants are surface and deep burrowing species; some
                         are permanent tube builders. Most species are annuals or biannuals, several
                         reproduce throughout the warm weather period. There is a fairly rapid turnover
                         of individuals due to predation so the average size of organisms is small.

                 Average density: Highly variable with polychaete worms reaching higher densities
                         than other groups. Densities of major invertebrate groups range from 330 to
                         3000 indjM2.

                 Primary production: Annual production ranges from 100 to 200 g        C/M2   This is lower
                         than that of marshes but only slightly less than other tidal flats. The primary
                         production of this community enters the estuarine food web directly via grazing.
                         This is more efficient than the detrital food chain where decomposition in an in-
                         termediate step. The large particle size of sand and lower percentage of organics
                         reduces the role of this community type in nutrient recycling.

                 Habitat value: Very important as nursery and feeding area for fishes and blue crabs.
                         Important shorebird feeding area. May support high shellfish populations.

                 Erosion buffer. Important in reducing wave energy and thus erosion potential on ad-
                         jacent shorelines.

                 SUBEWARY: Overall, the ecological value of this community rates only slightly below
                         beaches, oyster reefs and Group I marshes.




















            34







                                                                                              Wetlands Guidelines



                      Type XV. Sand/Mud Mixed Flat Community


                            Dominant species: Hard clams, parchment worms, Spionid polychaetes, soft clams,
                                   razor clams and mud snails.


                            Associated species: Other polychaetes, molluscs, crustaceans, acorn worms, Phoronid

                                   worms.


                            Growth habit: This community is populated in general by many surface and deep bur-
                                   rowers, and permanent tube builders. Otherwise similar to sand flats.

                            Average density: Highly variable but overall higher than sand flats or mud flats. Den-
                                   sities range from 5300 to 8300 individuals/m2.

                            Primary production and nutrient cycling- Primary production in this community
                                   is very similar to sand flats. Since the organic matter content of the sediments
                                   is higher than that of sand flats, secondary, microbial production may be higher
                                   and this augments the primary production. This community probably interacts
                                   with estuarine nutrient cycles to a greater extent than sand flats.

                            Habitat value: This community is a very important area for wading birds, shorebirds
                                   and other other migratory waterfowl. It is heavily used by important commer-
                                   cial and sports fishes for feeding and is important blue crab habitat. The habitat
                                   value may increase in importance when a marsh is adjacent due to higher or-
                                   ganic content in the sediments and the habitat variety provided by the marsh.

                            Erosion buffer- Slows wave velocity and thus may reduce wave erosion impinging on
                                   adjacent shoreline.

                            SUAINMRY- Overall this community has very high habitat values especially if as-
                                   sociated with marshes. Ranks only slightly below beaches and intertidal oyster
                                   reefs.
























                                                                                                                35







             Wetlands Gui&lines



            Type XVI. Mud Flat Community


                  Dominant species: Spionid worms, mud snails, razor clams, bloodworms.

                  Associated species: Other polychaetes, molluscs and crustaceans.

                  Growth habit. Surface and shallow burrowing organisms predominate in this com-
                         munity type. Some permanent tube builders may be present. Problems with
                         sediment stability limit species to mainly surface detrital feeders.

                  Average density: Highly variable; Generally densities are slightly lower than mixed
                                                                                                 2
                         flats but higher than sand/flats with a range of 50 to 5000 individuals/In

                  Primary production and nutrient cycling: The areal extent of mud flats is probab-
                         ly equal to or greater than the total for marshes. Primary production is probably
                         the highest of the nonvegetated communities. Mud flats interact significantly
                         with adjacent vegetated areas in the cycling of nutrients. Where mudflats and
                         marshes occur together they are mutually dependent. Ecologically, each is an ex-
                         tension of the other.


                  Habitat value: Highly important foraging area for waterfowl, sports and commercial
                         fishes and many other species of food chain value in the marine ecosystem.

                  Erosion buffer. Since this community is generally only found in quiescent areas it has
                         less value in this regard than sand or mixed flats..

                  SUDEMARY: The overall ecological value of rnud flats is comparable to sand flats and
                         mixed flats. It is probably most important in nutrient cycling of the three.























            36







                                                                                               Wetlands Guidelines



                       Type XVIL Intertidal Oyster Reef Community


                            Dominant species: Oysters, hard clams, sand worms, amphipods, mud crabs.

                            Associated species: Other polychaetes, mud snails, curved mussels, barnacles, spon-
                                    ges, hydroids, razor clams, other molluscs and crustaceans.

                            Growth habit: Oyster shells provide increased diversity of habitats for a variety of es-
                                    tuarine species. This community is characterized by high diversity of attached
                                    and associated organisms.

                            Average density: Oysters dominate when area managed by man. Otherwise the reef
                                    is dominated by fouling organisms as listed above. Highly variable density but
                                    generally greater than other flats.

                            Primary productivity and nutrient cycling- Very little data are available concern-
                                    ing the primary production of oyster reefs. Given the high habitat and animal
                                    diversity however, it is probable that primary production is at least as high as
                                    other nonvegetated communities.

                            Habitat value: Very high; many important food chain organisms associated. This com-
                                    munity is heavily utilized by blue crabs and fishes during high tides. Very high
                                    diversity and secondary productivity.

                            Erosion buffer: Shells cemented together may be important in dissipating waves and
                                    may resist shoreline erosive forces.

                            SUAINIARY- Overall ecological value very high. This community is an excellent
                                    habitat with high diversity.






















                                                                                                                37







            Wetlan& Gu&elines



           Section III


               Evaluation of Wetlands Types


               For management purposes, the twelve types of vegetated wetlands (marshes) and five
               types of nonvegetated wetlands (tidal flats and beaches) identified in Section 11 are
               grouped into five classifications based on the estimated total environmental value of an
               acre of each type. The reader is cautioned however that these groupings are based on
               average values and case-by-case analysis may yield differing results. One must also ex-
               ercise restraint when comparing vegetated vs. non-vegetated communities.

               Group One:     Vegetated communities


                              Saltmarsh cordgrass (Type 1)
                              Arrow arum-pickerel weed (Type VII)
                              Freshwater mixed (Type XI)
                              Brackish water mixed (Type XII)


                              Nonvegetated communities


                              Intertidal beaches (I)rpe XIII)
                              Intertidal oyster reef (Type XVII)

               The vegetated community types in Group One have the hiighest values in productivity
               and wildlife utility and are closely associated with fish spawning and nursery areas.
               They also have high values as erosion inhibitors, are important to shellfish populations
               and are important factors in nutrient cycling.

               Intertidal beaches and sand bars have the highest relative values as buffers to shoreline
               erosion. In addition, they rank very high as marine habitat and in secondary produc-
               tivity. Intertidal oyster reefs, which occur primarily on the seaside of the Eastern
               Shore, have their highest values in terms of productivity, habitat and commercial impor-
               tance.


               All of the communities in the Group One classification merit the highest order of protec-
               tion.















           38







                                                                                                   Wetlands Guidelines




                            Group Two:          Vegetated communities

                                                Big cordgrass (Type V)
                                                Saltmeadow (Type II)
                                                Cattail (Type VI)


                                                Nonvegetated communities


                                                Sand/flats (Type XIV)
                                                Sand/mud mixed flats (Type XV)
                                                Mud/flats (Type XVI)

                            The marshes in Group Two are only slightly less valuable than those in the Group One
                            classification. The major differences being the reduced availability of detritus from the
                            Group Two marshes due to pbysiographic factors. The detritus produced on the Group
                            Two marshes is more likely to accumulate in the marsh and is less available to marine
                            organisms. Group Two marshes have high values inniaintaining water quality, buffer-
                            ing coastal flooding, and as habitat.

                            The Group Two nonvegetated communities have high general productivity values and
                            play an essential role in nutrient cycling in the estuary. They are very important forag-
                            ing areas for marine birds and many mobile marine organisms of commercial and
                            recreational importance. They have less value than the Group One communities from
                            an erosion and flood buffering standpoint.

                            Group Two wetlands communities rank only slightly below those of Group One in over-
                            all environmental importance. They deserve an order of protection only slightly below
                            that of the Group One wetlands. Since there are many variables involved in any evalua-
                            tion scheme, it is highly likely that some Group Two wetlands may on occasion outrank
                            some Group One communities. This may be particularly true of the nonvegetated com-
                            munities which exhibit a great deal more variability than the vegetated communities.



                            Group Three: Yellow pond lily (Type IX)
                                                Black needlerush (Type III)

                            The two marshes in the Group Three category are quite dissimilar in properties. The
                            yellow pond lily marsh is not a significant contributor to the food web but it does have
                            high values to wildlife and waterfowl. Black needlerush has a high productivity factor
                            but a low detritus availability value. Black needlerush has little wildlife value but it
                            ranks high as an erosion and flood buffer. Group Three marshes are important, though
                            their total values are less than Group One and Two marshes. If development in wet-
                            lands is considered necessary, it would be better to alter Group Three marshes than
                            Group One or Two.





                                                                                                                       39







            Wetlands Guidelines




                 Group Four.        Saltbush (Type IV)

                 The saltbush community is valued primarily for the diversity and bird nesting habitat it
                 adds to the marsh ecosystem. To a lesser extent it also acts as an erosion buffer. Group
                 Four marshes should not be unnecessarily disturbed but it would be better to con-
                 centrate necessary development in these marshes rather than disturb any of the mar-
                 shes in the preceeding groups.



                 Group Five:       Saltwort (Type X)
                                   Reedgrass (Type VIII)

                 Based on present information Group Five marshes have only a few values of sig-
                 nificance. While Group Five marshes should not be unreasonably disturbed, it is
                 preferable to develop in these marshes than in any of the other types.

                 The ranking system above is only a partial tool for use in making decisions to alter wet-
                 lands for it measures only one wetland type against another. Other factors, involving a
                 total view of the creek or river system involved, should be considered in the decision
                 making process.

                 Acreage is obviously one important factor to consider when evaluating a specificwet-
                 land. A large wetland is inherently more valuable than a smaller wetland of the same
                 type. Many creeks and rivers in Virginia however, contain vegetated and nonvegetated
                 wetland areas which are quite small and/or fragmented. The cumulative value of these
                 small areas may be as great or greater than that of a single wetland of the same type
                 and acreage.

                 Any marsh which is 2 feet or more in average width is considered to have significant
                 values as an erosion deterrent and in filtering sediments coming from the uplands. It
                 may also have other values depending upon the total acreage of the marsh parcel. Any
                 marsh.which is greater than 1/10 of an acre in size may have, depending on type and
                 viability,'significant values in terms of productivity, detritus availability and w ildlife
                 habitat. Depending on its location, it may also have value -as an erosion buffer.

                 In Virginia wetlands represent a little over 1% of the total acreage in the state yet they
                 play a vital role in sustaining the important commercial and recreational fisheries
                 which millions of east coast citizens enjoy. Population and development pressures in the
                 tidal portion of Virginia pose a subtle but constant threat to these marine resources.
                 Habitat losses are'generally counted in small portions rather than catastrophic leaps. It
                 is very important to note that although the large scale projects attract greater publicity,
                 the total resource loss due to many small projects may be of equal or greater importance
                 from an environmental viewpoint.







            40







                                                                                             Wetlands Guidelines




                          Because of the essential functions performed by wetlands in the marine environment
                          and the limited extent of this resource, it is necessary to limit the activities which adver-
                          sely affect wetlands to those considered highly essential. If the activity proposed can be
                          accommodated while preserving all or most of the wetlands involved, a proper balance
                          has been struck. In cases where development and preservation are mutually exclusive
                          the necessity of the activity must be weighed against the value of the resource involved
                          and the degree of adverse impact the activity will have on the wetland.


                    Section IV


                          Criteria for Evaluating Alterations of Wetlands


                          The legislature established a policy "to preserve the wetlands and to prevent their
                          despoliation and destruction and to accommodate necessary economic development in a
                          manner consistent with wetlands preservation". This section addresses the foregoing
                          policy. Many proposed uses of the shoreline can be accommodated with little or no loss
                          of wetlands if the following criteria are applied. There are times, of course, when these
                          criteria may not apply in specific cases. The conscientious application of these criteria
                          will, however, materially reduce adverse environmental impacts of man's activities on
                          the shoreline.


                          The individual criteria contained in this section are supported by brief statements ex-
                          plaining the basic reasons behind adoption of the particular criterion. It is emphasized
                          that these rationale are of necessity very brief and do not encompass all aspects of the
                          given subject. Persons desiring further details should contact either the Virginia
                          Marine Resources Commission, Environmental Division or the Virginia institute of
                          Marine Science, Department of Wetlands Ecology.




                          General Criteria


                          A- Provided significant marine fisheries, wetlands and wildlife resources are not un-
                          reasonably detrimentally affected, alteration of the shoreline or construction of
                          shoreline facilities may be justified in order to:

                               1. Gain access to navigable waters by:

                                    a. Commercial, industrial, and recreational interests for which it has been
                                    clearly demonstrated that waterfront facilities are required.

                                    b. Owners of land adjacent to waters of navigable depth or waters which can
                                    be made navigable with only minimal adverse impact on the environment.



                                                                                                               41







             Wetlands Guidelines




                        2. Protect property from significant damage or loss due to erosion or other natural

                        causes.


                  B. Alteration of the shoreline is ordinarily notjustified:

                        1. For purposes or activities which can be conducted on existing fastlands and
                        which have no inherent requirement for access to water resources.

                        2. For purposes of creating waterfront property from lots and subdivisions which
                        are not naturally contiguous to waters of navigable depth or waters which can only
                        be made navigable by substantial alteration or destruction of marine resources.

                        3. When damage to properties owned by others is a likely result of the proposed ac-
                        tivity.

                        4.- When the alteration will result in discharge of effluents which impair wetlands,
                        water quality or other marine resources.

                        5. When there are viable alternatives which can achieve the given purpose without
                        adversely affecting marshes, oyster grounds or other natural resources.

                        Rationale: These criteria recognize riparian rightsand reserve the shoreline for
                        those uses or activities which require water access. These criteria also point out
                        that activities such as dredging into the fastlands for housing developments often
                        have a significant and long term adverse impact on the marine environment
                        through such effects as changed upland hydrology, sedimentation, changes in
                        water current patterns near the shoreline, and the introduction of pollutant dis-
                        charges which frequently lead to closure of shellfish grounds. The dredging of chan-
                        nels into fastlands may also lead to deterioration of ground water by salt water
                        intrusion into aquifers.

                  C. Utilization of open-pile type structures for gaining access to adeq uate water depths is
                  generally preferred over the construction of solid structure, dredging or filling.

                        Rationale: The construction of solid structures, or the conduct of dredging and fill-
                        ing operations, often causes irretrievable loss of wetlands through their direct dis-
                        placement or by indirect effects of sedimentation or altered water currents.
                        Open-pile type structures permit continued tidal flow over existing wetlands and
                        subtidal areas, avoid potential sedimentation problems, future maintenance dredg-
                        ing, and have less effect on existing water current patterns.

                  D. Channels, fills and structures should be designed to withstand the maximum stres-
                  ses of the marine environment and also to minimize the frequency of future main-
                  tenance activities.








             42







                                                                                               Wetlands Guidelines


    40                          Rationale: Shoreline alterations often change currents, affect Shoreline stability
                                and cause biological damage. Unsuccessful structures or channels generate
                                demands for remedial action which can compound initial adverse effects. Designs
                                which minimize the dredging frequency in channels are particularly important.
                                Dredging destroys or displaces bottom-dwelling organisms of value to the aquatic
                                food web. Organisms can be expected to recolonize a dredged area after a period of
                                time, however, too frequent dredging can inhibit recolonization.

                          E. High density development in or immediately adjacent to wetlands and/or other flood
                          plains is discouraged.

                                Rationale: Development in low-lying areas and on high energy coastlines has his-
                                torically created costly flood control and flood relief problems including claims for
                                indemnification. Additionally, hydrological changes in surface run-off patterns are
                                caused by the paving over of formerly absorbent soil. The usual effect is an in-
                                crease in both the amount and the rate of surface water-flow, often contributing to
                                shoreline erosion and other problems. Finally, high-density development leads to a
                                concentration of contaminating constituents in urban surface water runoff which
                                can severely stress receiving waters in the adjacent marine environment. There ap-
                                pears to be a direct relationship between population density in a watershed and in-
                                creased bacterial levels in adjacent waters. This may lead to the imposition of long
                                term restrictions on the direct marketing of shellfish.



                          Specific Cxiteria

                          The following specific criteria are established for use in the design, evaluation or
                          modification of individual projects.

                          A. Shoreline Protection Strategies

                                1. Shoreline protection structures are justified only if there is active, detrimental
                                shoreline erosion which cannot be otherwise controlled; if there is rapid sedimenta-
                                tion adversely affecting marine life or impairing navigation which cannot be cor-
                                rected by upland modifications; or if there is a clear and definite need to accrete
                                beaches.


                                Rationale: The design and placement of shoreline protection structures is a high-
                                ly technical subject and often the precise or long-term effects of such structures on
                                littoral processes cannot be predicted. A study of one county's shoreline shows that
                                nearly 50% of the existing shoreline protection systems are ineffective or poor in
                                performance. Shoreline protection structures disrupt natural forces and drive a
                                shoreline away from a natural equilibrium state. In short, all protective structures





                                                                                                                 43







             Wetlands Guidelines




                       have the potential to adversely affect marine resources directly or through indirect
                       means. Needless shoreline modification is therefore discouraged.

                       2. For shorelines experiencing mild to moderate erosion, the planting of marsh
                       grasses is a preferred means of stabilization. Note: The planting of marsh grasses
                       is not appropriate on all shorelines and requires some technical expertise. Free ad-
                       vice is available from the Virginia Shoreline Advisory Service and the Virginia In-
                       stitute of Marine Science.


                       Rationale: Fringing marshes buffer erosion through their dense root systems and
                       ability to collect sarid and sediments moving along the shoreline. When a fringe
                       marsh is established, it not only provides food and habitat for marine birds and
                       other organisms but also minimizes the adverse effects to adjacent shoreline
                       properties which are often associated with other types of erosion control measures.

                       3. When an erosion control structure, such as a bulkhead or seawall, is deemed
                       necessary, it should ordinarily be placed landward of any existing and productive
                       marsh vegetation. A line of saltbushes, if existing, can usually indicate the
                       seaward limit of the vertical structure. Along shorelines where no marsh vegeta-
                       tion exists, the retaining structure should ordinarily be placed far enough
                       landward of mean high water so as to minimize exposure to wave action.

                       Rationale: A vertical retaining structure behind a marsh not only preserves the
                       marsh for its biological productivity but also utilizes the marsh's capabilities of
                       aiding water quality and deterring erosion.

                       Placing a vertical retaining structure landward of mean high water minimizes its
                       exposure to wave action and reduces erosion or scour along the toe which could
                       jeopardize the integrity of the structure. Landward placement also preserves interi-
                       tidal bottom, maintaining habitat diversity and associated functions of this area
                       within the marine ecosystem.

                       4. Sloped rock or riprap revetments and gabions are generally preferred over verti-
                       cal structures.


                       Rationale: Vertical retaining structures tend to reflect wave energy and often
                       transfer a problem to neighboring properties. Coastal waves, whether from
                       natural causes or from boat wakes, are better absorbed or dissipated by riprap
                       revetments or gabions. In addition, the slope and open spaces in riprap or gabion
                       structures may provide suitable habitat for crabs and small fish. In some cases,
                       sediment may be trapped in riprap or gabion structures and subsequently become
                       vegetated with marsh species.

                       5. The placement of offshore breakwater or submerged, nearshore sills parallel to
                       a portion of shoreline in order to attempt to elevate the height of a beach or damp-




            44







                                                                                                    Wetlands Guidelines



    is                           en wave energy is generally acceptable only in areas with a good sand supply in
                                 the nearshore zone or where there is active detrimental erosion. Sill structures are
                                 usually constructed of properly filled sandbags, gabions or mortar filled bags. Al-
                                 though not a general rule, the sill is usually most effective when placed at or near
                                 the mean low water line. Both breakwaters and sills must be specifically designed
                                 for the shoreline segment in question.

                                 Rationale: The placement of sill structures where there is an insufficient supply
                                 of sand to the beach may cause harmful effects to the shorelines of adjacent
                                 downdrift properties. Placing the sills at, or near the mean low water line will
                                 usually ensure sufficient backshore height. Placement of the sill structure too far
                                 offshore may result in insufficient filling and ultimately failure of the system. Sills
                                 may also not be suitable for high use beaches because of the potential hazard to
                                 swimmers.


                                 6. The placement of a groin or series of groins on eroding shorelines in an effort to
                                 trap sand and build up a beach is justified only when there is sufficient sand in the
                                 littoral drift system or if properly functioning groins already exist in the section of
                                 shoreline in question.

                                 Rationale: Groins are designed to trap sand and build beaches. When they func-
                                 tion properly, they necessarily deprive downdrift shorelines of sand and thus may
                                 accelerate erosion to adjacent properties particularly if there is only a small
                                 amount of sand available in the system.

                                 7. When groins are considered justified they should be low profile in design and
                                 only as long as is necessary to trap sand drifting in the littoral zone. Ideal groin
                                 length can be determined by examining the sand fillets in existing groins along the
                                 same shoreline reach or can be based on the width of the local beach.

                                 Rationale: The low profile groin is designed to resemble the natural beach slope
                                 and allow sand to by-pass and thus nourish downstream properties once the groin
                                 has filled. Groins which are too long for the existing beach may shunt sand out to
                                 deeper water thus making it unavailable to downdrift, properties.

                                 8. The use of jetties at the entrance of a channel in order to maintain navigable
                                 depths or protect the entrance from wave attack is justified only when there is a
                                 clear and demonstrated need for such a structure and adjacent properties will not
                                 be significantly adversely affected.

                                 Rationale: jetties attempt to prevent the littoral drift from entering the channel
                                 by trapping sediment moving along the shoreline. Sand tends to accumulate on the
                                 updrift side of a jetty and sediments are transported away from the jetty on the
                                 downdrift side. This can often result in accelerated erosion of the downdrift
                                 shoreline.






                                                                                                                         45






              Wetlands Guidelines




                   B. Filling and Dredged Material Disposal.

                        1. Filling in wetlands or subaqueous areas for the singular purpose of creating
                        waterfront upland property is generally undesirable.

                        Rationale: Marine resources are finite, provide many valuable services and
                        products and are delicately balanced in an intricate web of biological and physical
                        interactions. Permanent loss of these resources and unnecessary alterations jeop-
                        ardize this delicate ecological balance.

                        2. When filling along a shoreline is necessary, the activity should be confined to
                        the area landward of any wetlands. If suitable non-wetland areas are not available
                        and it is necessary to locate the fill further seaward, locations in Group 3-5 wet-
                        lands should be selected if possible (reed grass, saltwort, saltbush, black need-
                        lerush, yellow pond lily). Every reasonable effort should be made to preserve
                        existing Group 1 and 2 wetlands communities. In nonvegetated wetlands, fill
                        should be contained at or above the mean high water line. In cases where some
                        encroachment beyond mean high water is justified (e.g. where an eroding bluff is
                        being graded down to stop erosion), the encroachment channelward of mean high
                        water should be limited to the minimum required to achieve the desired goal.

                        Rationale: The values of the more important wetland communities are preserved,
                        thus somewhat lessening the undesirable impact of destroying marshes and in the
                        case of nonvegetated areas, minimizing encroachment conserves these shallow
                        areas to function as described in Section II of this document.


                        3. Fill material, whether on wetlands or nearby fastlands, should not contain con-
                        taminants which may leach into adjacent waters. Upland source material is
                        generally preferable to dredged material for use as fill.

                        Rationale: Oil or other contaminants can leach off the surface of filled areas and
                        travel to adjacent waters via surface runoff. In some instances, they may also
                        leach downward into the water table. In either case, water quality is impaired.
                        Most dredged material is composed of silts and clays which when dry and com-
                        pacted do not allow the free flow of water and thus may cause hydraulic flow
                        problems behind a bulkhead.

                        4. Where feasible, controlled disposal of dredged material on highland property is
                        the preferred method.

                        Rationale: There are many difficulties inherent in controlling dredged material in
                        the marine environment. Marine resources are finite and subject to significant dis-
                        ruption from such activities since the water column can act as a vector carrying
                        sediments well beyond the immediate disposal point.






             46







                                                                                                     Wetlands Guidelines




                                  5. Dredged material disposal areas should meet the following criteria:

                                       a. Disposal by the bucket or dragline method:

                                             1. Build an earth-tight bulkhead along the perimeter of the disposal
                                             area sufficient to confine the dredge spoil. The bulkhead or dike (berm)
                                             should have a top elevation at least 3 feet above the average upper limit
                                             of spring tides.

                                             2. Earthen dikes (berms) should be compacted as they are constructed,
                                             have side slopes no steeper than 1 horizontal to 3 vertical, a top width of
                                             at least 3 feet, and the toe of the slope should be at least 15 feet from ex-
                                             isting marsh grasses. Spillway boxes or release pipes should be provided
                                             to prevent water from eroding or over-topping the dike. As soon as pos-
                                             sible after completion of the project, the disposal area should be graded
                                             and vegetative cover established.

                                             3. In some projects involving small volumes of generally sandy material,
                                             a double line of staked straw bales may provide suitable containment.

                                       b. Disposal by hydraulic methods:

                                             Earthen dikes should be constructed by dragline or land fill methods to
                                             the specifications as described in 3 (1) above. The volume of the disposal
                                             area lying below the elevation of the spillway crest should, at all times
                                             during the dredging, be sufficient to provide a retention time long
                                             enough to clarify the discharge water to meet applicable water quality
                                             standards. The spillway should be placed as far as possible from the dis-
                                             charge end of dredging pipes.

                                             2. The dredge pipeline should have tight joints to prevent leaks. Grad-
                                             ing and vegetative cover should be accomplished as soon as possible. (It
                                             is recognized that hydraulically filled areas may take many months to
                                             dry sufficiently for people or equipment to move across them. Seeding
                                             may have to be delayed for periods possibly as long as a year. The
                                             spillway should therefore be maintained until the area is permanently
                                             seeded and vegetation is well established and providing adequate
                                             ground cover to retain the soil).

                                  Rationale: Control of sedimentation is accomplished if the above criteria is main-
                                  tained during the entire dredging period.

                                  6. Dredged material should not ordinarily be deposited in adjacent marsh as a con-
                                  venience. if it becomes necessary to place spoil on a marsh, consideration should be
                                  given to placing it on those portions of lower value or to scattering the material in




                                                                                                                           47







            Wetlands Guidelines




                      a thin layer rather than containing it behind a berm. Berms in marshes should be
                      used to contain fill only when absolutely necessary and when they will not impair
                      tidal flow to other wetlands areas.


                      Rationale: A continuous berm often cuts off water supply to a marsh. Selective
                      piling allows continued water supply to uncovered portions of a marsh and may en-
                      hance habitat for wildfowl and animals. Scattering of dredged material in a thin
                      layer can sometimes maintain basic marsh values though it may ultimately lead to
                      changes in vegetative species if the marsh surface is significantly raised in eleva-
                      tion. The depth of the soil layer must be evaluated in each case.

                      7. Whenever feasible, displaced marsh vegetation and peat should be used to
                      reconstitute marsh in the vicinity of the activity site and particularly along the
                      banks of newly cut canals. The practice of compensating for marsh loss in one area
                      by building marsh in another is theoretically viable but because of significant tech-
                      nical difficulties is not always recommended.

                      Rationale: This procedure, when successful, aids in maintaining marsh inventory
                      and will deter shoreline erosion and enhance water quality conditions.

                      8. When under specific case by case analysis it is determined that marsh creation
                      is an acceptable means of compensating for an unavoidable marsh loss, one marine
                      habitat (e.g. tidal flats) should ordinarily not be sacrificed to create another
                      (marsh). Resource compensation through marsh creation, is not a panacea and
                      should be limited to cases where the loss of existing marsh is unavoidable and sig-
                      nificant and there is a high probability of success.

                      Rationale: There is at present no conclusive evidence that the trading of one
                      marine habitat for another results in a net gain for the environment. The creation
                      of marsh from upland or other habitat is technically feasible in many cases. It is
                      however a complex activity that generally cannot be successfully accomplished
                      without technical knowledge and expertise.

                      9. Overboard disposal of dredged material is generally undesirable unless the
                      deposits are basically clean sand, the disposal area is devoid of commercially im-
                      portant bottom organisms, and the deposits will have a beneficial effect on
                      shoreline erosion problems. There may be occasions when overboard disposal of
                      silty spoil can be used to create marsh. This will probably also entail the planting
                      or seeding of marsh vegetation under closely controlled conditions.

                      Rationale: Silty soils tend to stay in the water column longer than the heavier
                      sands and may therefore drift to other areas resulting in damage to bottom or-
                      ganisms outside the selected spoil area. Pollutants may likewise drift with the cur-
                      rents. In some cases, good quality sand can be beneficial in nourishing starved or
                      eroding beaches and this possibility should be considered.




           48







                                                                                                   Wetlands Guidelines




                                  10. Whenever overboard disposal is permitted, the operation should be located and
                                  conducted so as to minimize impacts on commercially important bottom dwelling
                                  (benthic) organisms such as clams and oysters, submerged aquatic vegetation, and
                                  other unique or highly productive habitats.


                                  Rationale: Because water is the link which ties all different marine habitats
                                  together and can transport pollutants over large areas, care must be taken to local-
                                  ize the impacts of overboard disposal to the maximum extent practical.

                                  11. The overboard disposal of good quality sand in order to replenish beaches is
                                  generally acceptable so long as the beach sand and dredged sand are size-com-
                                  patible.

                                  Rationale: The placement of material of smaller particle size than that found on
                                  the natural beach will only serve to increase turbidity since it will be resuspended
                                  by wave action and carried away very quickly resulting in little benefit for the
                                  sand-starved beach.


                             C. Dredging

                                  1. When possible, open pile piers should be lengthened to reach necessary water
                                  depths in order to minimize the amount of dredging required.

                                  Rationale: Open pile piers have a minimal adverse impact on the marine environ-
                                  ment. Dredging is a significant, though temporary, disruption which must be
                                  repeated in order to maintain water depths. Every dredging project, whether new
                                  dredging or maintenance requires an approved disposal area and this can be a
                                  major problem particularly in developed areas.

                                  2. Dredging for the singular purpose of obtaining fill is ordinarily not justified.

                                  Rationale: Although dredged areas are repopulated to a degree by organisms
                                  after cessation of dredging, they generally never return to their predredge produc-
                                  tivity levels if water depths are greatly increased. The result is a chronic degrada-
                                  tion of habitat quality and reduction in system productivity.

                                  3. For relatively small projects (2000 c.y. or less), dredging by dragline or bucket
                                  method is generally preferred.

                                  Rationale: Control of sedimentation is much simpler with the bucket dredge in
                                  that there is a higher ratio of soil to water as the dredged material is transferred
                                  from the dredging area. Dredged material disposal is less complicated and more
                                  easily subject to productive use. Hydraulic dredging is preferred for large dredging
                                  projects particularly when the dredged material is to be placed in an area remote
                                  from the dredged site.





                                                                                                                     49







             Wetlands Guidelines




                        4. The practice of "double handling" dredged material in a waterway is generally
                        undesirable.


                        Rationale: This activity, which involves the interim placement of dredged
                        material in the waterway effectively doubles the adverse effects of bottom disrup-
                        tion and turbidity, associated with dredging activities.

                        5. Dredging in shellfish areas, beds of subaquatic vegetation and other areas of sin-
                        gularly high productivity should be avoided if possible

                        Rationale: These areas generally have very high values to both commercial and
                        sport fisheries and to the organisms that support them.. In addition their recovery
                        period from dredging is measured in years rather than months as is the case for
                        other bottom types. In many cases the new depth involved after dredging may
                        preclude any recovery of these particular biotic communities.

                        6. In oyster and clam growing areas (brackish and saline water) dredging should
                        be avoided during the months of July, August, September, December, January and
                        February, whenever possible. This is particularly important when the dred ing is
                                                                                                      91
                        to be performed within 500 yards of, or overboard disposal is within one mile of,
                        productive public or privately leased oyster ground. In anadro'mous fish spawning
                        and nursery areas (i.e. freshwater), dredging and overboard disposal operations
                        should be avoided, when possible, during the period of mid-March through Oc-
                        tober. Particularly critical is the actual spawning period, mid-March through                             40
                        June. Concern is heightened when overboard disposal is involved.

                        Rationale: The majority of oyster spawning and spatfall occurs during the
                        months of July, August and September in most areas of Virginia. Higher than nor-
                        mal suspended solids levels, which can occur in proximity to large dredging and
                        disposal activities, can interfere with the development and survival of oyster lar-
                        vae. Resultant sedimentation can also adversely affect the setting of oyster larvae
                        by covering clean hard substrates thus making them unavailable to the larvae.
                        During the coldest months of the year, oysters are more susceptible to siltation be-
                        cause their pumping activity is reduced and they are-   I,ess able to clear away rapid-
                        ly accumulating silt. During the spring spawning run (mid-March through June)
                        anadromous fisheggs and larvae can be adversely affected by higher than normal
                        levels of suspended sediments. Adult migrations can be impeded especially in nar-
                        row streams and rivers where'turbidity may reach from bank to bank. The period
                        July through October is the nursery period when the larvae develop into juveniles
                        before beginning their migration back to the ocean. Note: This guideline is not sub-
                        ject to blanket application in the salinity regimes where it is applicable. Careful
                        case-by-case analysis is required.

                        7. In relatively large water bodies, overdredging to reduce the frequency of main-
                        tenance dredging, should not exceed an additional two feet and this should be




             50







                                                                                              Wetlands Guidelines




                                based on the anticipated sedimentation rate. In narrow canals and other water
                                bodies subject to poor flushing, the dredged depth should not exceed one foot below
                                that of the connecting waters.

                                Rationale: This guideline balances the benefits of reduced maintenance frequency
                                and thus environmental disturbance with the creation of stagnant or "dead" water
                                which can occur when artificially deep holes are created.



                          Specialized Structures and Activities

                          D. Channeling into Fastland or Marshes

                                1. Where feasible, community piers and launching facilities are preferable to chan-
                                neling into fastlands or marshes for water access in conjunction with urban
                                development.

                                Rationale: Studies have shown that such channeling leads to water quality
                                problems. Poor water circulation and flushing, combined with contaminating con-
                                stituents and high nutrient loads from adjacent development often leads to
                                reduced dissolved oxygen levels, noxious odors, uncontrolled algal growth and fish
                                kills.


                                2. While environmentally objectionable, there may be times when channels into
                                marshes or uplands are permitted. When this is the case, the following criteria
                                should be applied in order to reduce adverse effects:

                                     a. Channels should be short in length and preferably no longer than twice the
                                     width.


                                     b. Channels should not be dredged more than I foot deeper than the depth of
                                     the waterway to which they are to be connected.

                                     c. Channels should not be box-cut but should be dredged with slopes that ap-
                                     proximate the natural angle of repose of soils of the area, usually on the
                                     order of 3 feet horizontal for every 1 foot vertical.

                                     d. The top banks of channels should be graded to a slight incline anywhere be-
                                     tween mean sea level and mean high tide for an inland distance of at least 10
                                     feet. This area should then be planted with marsh vegetation appropriate to
                                     the soils and the salinity of waters in the area.

                                     e. Channels should be significantly shallower at their heads than at their
                                     mouths in order to promote better exchange with the natural waterway.





                                                                                                                51







              Wetlands Guidelines




                              f, Channel curves and angles should be avoided.

                        Rationale: The foregoing criteria reduce the potential adverse impacts of chan-
                        nelization by providing for better water circulation and bank stability. The marsh
                        vegetation aids in preventing upland spoils and contaminants from lowering water
                        quality.

                   E. Dams and Impoundments

                        1. Dams and impoundments should ordinarily not be located in tidal wetland
                        areas. If some encroachment into such areas is deemed necessary every effort
                        should be made to limit the encroachment as much as possible and restrict marsh
                        loss to Group 3-5 marshes.

                        Rationale: Impounding an upland area generally involves a tradeoff of one set of
                        upland habitat values (e.g. hardwood forest) for another set (lake or pond). When
                        tidal wetlands are lost to this same type of development, the loss to the marine en-
                        vironment can be severe and is generally irreplaceable.

                        2. When a dam or impoundment is constructed in, or adjacent to, a tidal stream,
                        provisions should be incorporated into the design to maintain a flow of freshwater
                        into the estuary-

                        Rationale: Maintaining a flow will minimize the upstream movement of salt
                        water in the stream and thus reduce large scale aquatic habitat changes due to
                        salinity shift.

                        3. Dams should incorporate the use of fish ladders in order to minimize the loss of
                        upstream spawning and nursery grounds for marine species.

                        Rationale: Many commercial and sports fishes are spawned and develop to adult
                        stages above the tidal estuary. These areas are critical to the maintenance of
                        population levels in these species.

                        4. Techniques which will minimize the possibility of mudwave creation adjacent to
                        the dam site should be implemented when wetlands are present.

                        Rationale: This guideline limits wetland losses due to i mipoundments to that ini-
                        mediately in and upstream of the dam site. A mudwave effectively destroys wet-
                        lands in its path by raising the substrate elevation above the range of tide.

                        5. Whenever possible, impoundments should be designed to incorporate shallow
                        water areas capable of supporting emergent vegetation and water tolerant timber.

                        Rationale: Shallow water habitat within the impoundment can help offset the
                        loss of tidal wetland habitat due to dam construction.





             52






                                                                                      Wetlands Guidelines





                       F. Marinas

                             1. Dry storage type facilities are encouraged in preference to wet slip complexes.

                             Rationale: Such facilities minimize adverse impacts to the marine environment
                             and do not occupy space in the water which could be used for recreation by all
                             citizens of the Commonwealth.

                             2. When siting and designing a marina facility in a coastal waterway, the following
                             should be considered:


                                 a. All structures should be open-pile or floating with any permanent loss of
                                 aquatic habitat limited to that which is absolutely necessary.

                                 b. If sited in a small tributary or other poorly circulating body of water, the
                                 marina should be situated near the mouth rather than the headwaters.


                                 c. The structures should encroach no more than one third the distance across
                                 the waterway except in unusual channel configurations.

                                 d. Marinas should be sited away from productive or actively worked oyster
                                 and clam grounds.

                                 e. Consideration should be given to the size and depth of the existing water-
                                 way and to the number of boats already housed in the vicinity.

                                 f. Slips for deep draft vessels should be located in the naturally deeper waters
                                 of the marina.


                                 g. If the site involves a marsh, all structures except those needed for access
                                 (ramps, railways, etc.) should be located landward of or channelward of
                                 marsh vegetation.

                                 h. Design of any necessary breakwaters should permit adequate water cir-
                                 culation within the facility to help prevent an accumulation of pollutants.
                                 Floating tire or other non-permanent type breakwaters should be considered.

                             Rationale: The foregoing criteria reduce the potential adverse impacts of marinas
                             by providing for better water circulation, minimizing marine habitat loss, and
                             reducing initial and maintenance dredging requirements.

                        G. Drainage and mosquito ditches

                             1. Drainage and mosquito ditches should be designed according to a master plan
                             which will maximize their effectiveness while minimizing their extent as much as
                             possible.




                                                                                                       53






              Wetlands Guidelines




                         2. Ditches designed along conventional grid patterns are discouraged in favor of
                         ditches which link identified mosquito producing areas within the marsh with
                         tidal waters. Drainage ditches should also be designed to connect to specifically
                         identified areas of poor drainage.

                         3. Depths should be limited to no more than 1 foot deeper than the connecting
                         waters.


                         4. Depending on the size of the ditch, dredging should be accomplished "in the dry"
                         (landside to seaward).

                         5. If dredge spoil must be placed in the marsh, it should be spread or broadcast as
                         thinly as possible over a broad area with no effective elevation change on the
                         marsh surface. If this is not possible, the dredged material should be placed in
                         small widely separated mounds creating plant diversity and allowing water to cir-
                         culate over the remaining marsh.

                         6. Where maintenance dredging is to be accomplished, the dredged material
                         should be placed, to the maximum extent possible, on the old spoil area. If this is
                         in the form of a continuous berm paralleling the ditch, the berm should be
                         breached periodically to promote inundation of the remaining marsh.

                         7. Rotary ditchers are the preferred means of constructing mosquito ditches and
                         small drainage ditches.

                         Rationale: Adherence to the above procedures will maximize the effectiveness of
                         the ditches while minimizing adverse impacts to the wetlands.

                   H. Submarine pipeline crossings

                         1. Whenever feasible, pipelines should be placed on piles or attached to existing
                         structure.


                         2. When a pipeline must be buried in the river bottom, the stockpiling of excavated
                         material adjacent to the trench should be avoided.

                         3. When a pipeline must be buried in a marsh, material may be temporarily placed
                         along side the trench if upon completion all excess material is removed from the
                         marsh, the original elevation is restored, and all denuded areas are sprigged with
                         appropriate vegetation.

                         Rationale: These guidelines minimize construction impacts to the wetlands and
                         allow for the fastest possible recovery of the natural system after the disturbance.







             54







                                                                                              Wetlands Guidelines



                     Glossary


                           ALGAE - Simple marine or freshwater photosynthetic plants. May be single or multi-
                                   celled.


                           ANNUALS - Invertebrates which generally spawn once a year and live about a year.

                           BENTHIC - Pertaining to any plant or animal living in or on the bottom sediment of a
                                   river, ocean, lake or other aquatic system.

                           BERM - A wall or mound built around a low-lying area to contain a spoil material.

                           BIANNUALS - Invertebrates which generally spawn twice a year and live less than a
                                   year.

                           BRACKISH - Pertaining to the waters of bays and estuaries, salty but of lower salinity
                                   than seawater.


                           BULKHEAD - A structure or partition, usually running parallel to the shoreline, for the
                                   purpose of protecting fastlands from wave action or protecting channels from
                                   upland sedimentation.

                           COMMUNITY - Ecological term for any naturally occurring group of different or-
                                   ganisms inhabiting a common environment, interfacing with each other relative-
                                   ly independent of other groups. Communities may vary in size and larger
                                   communities may contain smaller ones.

                           DETRITUS - Organic matter (primarily marsh plants) which while decaying in the
                                   aquatic system forms the basis of major marine food web. The organic matter
                                   and its rich growth of microbes are fed on by many estuarine species.

                           DOMINANT - For purposes of classifying marshes in this report, any organism which
                                   makes up at least 50% by volume of the organisms present in a given area.

                           DRAGLINE - The method of dredging employing a crane and large metal bucket to
                                   remove accumulated sediment.


                           DREDGING IN THE DRY - A technique of dredging used where new channels or canals
                                   are being cut. The canal is dredged from the landward end toward the seaward
                                   end and the last step is to open the new canal to the existing waterway.

                           DIKE - A wall or mound built around a low-lying area to prevent flooding.

                           ECOLOGY - The overall relationships between organisms and their environment.





                                                                                                                 55






            Wetlands Guidelines




                FASTLANDS - The zone extending from the landward limits of wetlands to at least 400
                        feet inland.


                FRESH WATER - Waters containing no appreciable salt, usually less than .5 parts per
                        thousand.


                FOOD WEB - The complex interactions of organisms in a natural community involving
                        organisms feeding on one another to obtain energy.

                GABION - A container filled with stone, brick, shells or other material to give it a heavy
                        weight suitable for use in constructing bulkheads or groins. In the marine en-
                        vironment, usually made of galvanized steel wire mesh with a PVC (polyvinyl
                        chloride) coating over the galvanizing.

                GROIN - A shore protection structure built (usually perpendicular to the shoreline) to
                        trap sand and other material moving along the shoreline and thus retard
                        erosion of the shore.


                HETEROGENEOUS - Being composed of many different forms of something. Specifical-
                        ly, a heterogeneous marsh is one composed of many different species without
                        any one being dominant.

                HYDROLOGICAL - Pertaining to water, its properties and distribution especially with
                        reference to water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rock.

                INTERTIDAL - Area on a shoreline between mean high water and mean low water.

                JETTY - On open seacoast, a structure extending into a body of water designed to
                        prevent shoaling of a channel by sand or other materials. Usually placed along
                        side channels at entrances.


                LINE OF SALTBUSHES - Refers to the characteristic growth of saltmarshes at the
                        upper limit of the highest high tides. When present in a line along the inland
                        side of a marsh it often indicates the upper limits of wetlands as defined in the
                        Virginia Wetlands Act.

                LITTORAL PROCESSES - Those physical features and characteristics of the intertidal
                        area which determine the type of shoreline present.

                MICROCOSM - A small community regarded as having all the characteristics of the bio-
                        sphere or the world.

                MONOSPECIFIC - Being composed entirely of one species or one type of organism. In
                        this case a marsh vegetated by one type of grass.

                MEAN HIGH WATER - The average height of high waters over a nineteen year period.




           56







                 Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/
                             Beaches Guidelines



                       Guidelines for the Permitting of Activities
                     Which Encroach into Coastal Primary Sand
                                          Dunes/Beaches






                                             Issued by the
                               Virginia Marine Resources Commission
                                           2401 West Avenue
                                    Newport News, Virginia 23607






                       Developed Pursuant to Chapter 2.2 of Title 62.1, Code of Virginia,
                              These Guidelines were approved on August 26, 1980
                                   and became effective September 26, 1980

                                             Revised August 1986






                                                                               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                         Table of Contents



                                Section I         Introduction     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      5


                                Section II        Description of Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and Their Values                    . . . . 6

                                Section III       Consequences of Altering Coastal Primary Sand Dunes                  . . . . . . . .  9

                                Section IV        Recommended Guidelines When Altering Coastal
                                                  Primary Sand Dunes          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     12

                                Section V         Considerations for Construction and Mitigation Activities
                                                  in the Area of Coastal Primary Sand Dunes               . . . . . . . . . . . . .   15


                                Section VI        Beaches     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       16


                                Section VII       Barrier Island Policy and Supplemental Guidelines                . . . . . . . . .  17

                                .Section VIII     Coastal Dune Vegetation         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     27

                                                      Sea Oats       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      29


                                                      American Beach Grass          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     31


                                                      Short Dune Grass, Running Beach Grass               . . . . . . . . . . . . .   33

                                                      Seaside Goldenrod         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     35


                                                      Dusty Miller       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      37

                                                      Dune Bean, Beach Bean           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     39

                                                      Seabeach Sandwort           . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     41


                                                      Sea Rocket       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      43


                                                      Beach Heather        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      45

                                                      Saltmeadow Hay         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      47

                                Glossary     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        48









                                                                                                                                           3







                                                                    Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                      Section I


                            Introduction


                            During its 1980 session, the Virginia General Assembly took an important step in reduc-
                            ing the potential for the loss of lives and property as well as the expenditure of public as-
                            sistance funds in coastal hazard areas by adopting the first State-supervised program
                            in Virginia for controlling development in coastal primary sand dunes. In adopting the
                            legislation, the Commonwealth recognized the importance of coastal primary sand
                            dunes as features which, in their natural state, serve as protective buffers to the effects
                            of flooding and erosion caused by coastal storms; thereby, protecting life and property,
                            and further recognized the value of these features to the replenishment of sand on
                            beaches, their importance as habitat for coastal fauna and their role in the overall
                            scenic and recreational attractiveness of Virginia's coastal environment.

                            At the same time, the General Assembly expressed its concern over the fact that ac-
                            tivities which do not take into account the essentially dynamic nature of coastal dunes
                            and which compromise their special values may lead to increased shoreline erosion,
                            coastal flooding damage to fixed structures and increased expenditure of public funds
                            for disaster assistance and beach replenishment. Therefore, the General Assembly es-
                            tablished the policy of preserving and protecting, whenever necessary and practical,
                            coastal primary sand dunes in a manner which accommodates necessary economic
                            development. Building upon the successful structure of the Virginia Wetlands Act, the
                            General Assembly has chosen to offer selected localities having coastal primary sand
                            dunes the opportunity to adopt a specified ordinance to control development in these
                            dunes through local wetlands boards already in existence or created in order to carry
                            out this Act. In order to simplify the task of these boards as well as the Marine Resour-
                            ces Commission, the legislators have wisely chosen to standardize procedures for the
                            Wetlands and Dunes Statutes. Therefore, as with the Wetlands Statute, the Marine
                            Resources Commission will review, on appeal, local permit decisions on dunes, and
                            where the locality has not adopted the specified ordinance, administer the permit sys-
                            tem itself.


                            In order to provide guidance to the public, and to local wetlands boards as well as to in-
                            sure uniformity of decisionmaking criteria, the General Assembly directed the Marine
                            Resources Commission, with the assistance of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
                            to develop and publish guidelines. These guidelines were approved by the Commission
                            August 26, 1980 following four public hearings which were held in conformance with
                            the Administrative Processes Act. They are promulgated to supplement the policy and
                            standards of the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act with the hope that they
                            will assist project proponents and decision-makers alike in shaping shorefront develop-
                            ment in a manner that preserves and protects the values of coastal primary sand dunes
  0                         articulated in the Act.


                                                                                                                         5







              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                   In 1989, the General Assembly modified the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act
                   to bring "beaches" in certain counties, cities and towns fronting on Chesapeake Bay
                   under the same regulatory process as that required of dunes. The intent is to regulate
                   the use or development of sandy beaches and to prevent their alteration even if no coas-
                   tal primary sand dune can be identified or where contiguity with a dune system or
                   former dune system has been interrupted by a manmade structure such as a road,
                   bulkhead or building.


              Section Il


                   Description of Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and Their Values


                   A. Dune Characterization. The Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act defines a
                   dune as a mound of unconsolidated sandy soil which is contiguous to mean high water,
                   whose landward and lateral limits are marked by a change in grade from ten percent or
                   greater to less than ten percent and upon any part of which is growing as of July one,
                   nineteen hundred eighty, or grows thereon subsequent thereto, any one or more of ten
                   plant species associated with dunes. Under this definition, chosen to recognize the
                   dynamic nature of the system, coastal primary sand dunes include both the mound of
                   sand comprising the dune zone as well as the foreshore comprising the beach zone.
                   Together, these two zones form the coastal primary sand dune system which commen-
                   ces at mean high water and proceeds landward to the backside of the dunes where the
                   slope drops below ten percent. (See Figure 1).

                   The primary dune system is a component of the active shore system as well as a transi-
                   tion zone between the intertidal area and secondary rows of dunes or fastland property.
                   Coastal primary sand dunes represent an accumulation of sand, often supporting rooted
                   vegetation, formed by the interaction of wind and wave action on the sandy material
                   along the shore. Sand moved on the beach during periods of relatively low wave energy
                   is moved landward by the action of onshore winds. Vegetation along the dune line acts
                   as a baffle, slowing wind speed and causing wind-borne sand to settle and be trapped in
                   the vegetation resulting in the growth or accretion of the dune. The size and location of
                   a primary dune are therefore determined by the amount of sand available and the
                   ability of wind and waves to move the sand as well as the degree to which any existing
                   vegetation can act to trap it. Thus, just as the intensity, direction and duration of winds
                   and waves constantly change through the seasons, so, too, do coastal dunes remain in a
                   state of flux. During high energy conditions, such as the northeast storms which fre-
                   quent the Eastern Seaboard, primary dunes may be subject to attack by wind driven
                   waves aided by storm surges, and the dune is eroded away, with the sand settling in an
                   offshore bar. Thus, during normal weather conditions, dunes act as a reservoir of sand
                   which can, through erosion, buffer inland areas from the effects of storm waves and in
                   the process act as natural levees against the effects of coastal flooding.



              6






                                                                         Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines

















                                                       COASTAL PREMLARY SAND DUNE                        limi


                                                      Dune Zone          4    Beach Zone         V
                                                                                                        2


                                                                                                 lateral/  9   'io 6     -4' -4 '2
                                                                                                  limit



                                 slope limi


                                                                                                           mean high water
                                              greater thaii
                               less than                          01
                                  10%             1090,


                               trough            dune   dune dune   dune      backshore  berm foreshore                    bar
                                              backface   crest face toe








                                                                  Figure I
                                                                                                                high w
                                                                                                       @mea@n @awr
                                              gre,1t;tha
                                                     0




































                                                                                                                                7






               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                    B. Dune Values. In adopting legislation governing coastal primary sand dunes, the
                    General Assembly recognized that these features, "...in their natural state serve as
                    protective barriers from the effects of coastal flooding and erosion caused by coastal
                    storms ... provide an essential source of natural sand replenishment for beaches and an
                    important natural habitat for coastal fauna; and are important to the overall scenic and
                    recreational attractiveness of Virginia's coastal area." Every primary sand dune
                    provides some measure of each of these four recognized benefits, depending upon the
                    size, location and setting of the dune as well as the quality and vigor of the vegetation.

                         1. Flood and Erosion Protection. Primary sand dunes provide a buffer against
                         coastal flooding and erosion by virtue of both their location and composition.
                         Primary dunes develop at an elevation above the normal reach of tidal waters.
                         During storm surges, however, the dune, as noted above, serves as a levee protect-
                         ing the land behind from the force of waves and flood waters. The sand itself ab-
                         sorbs much of the wave energy as it is moved about by storm waves. Thus, the
                         energy each wave expends eroding the dune is subsequently unavailable to act on
                         fastland and structures behind the dune. The ability of the dune to provide this
                         protection is obviously dependent on its height and breadth. The continuity of the
                         dune line is also a major factor in the ability of the dune to provide protection.
                         Solitary dunes or dune lines which are subject to being breached or flanked cannot
                         afford the protection provided by a continuous line of uniformly high dunes.

                         The composition of the dune, in terms of its sediments and vegetation, also affects
                         its ability to provide protection for coastal areas. As noted above, dune vegetation
                         acts as a baffle to trap sand where the root system of the vegetation as well as
                         dead vegetation bind the sediments together. Thus, the type and vigor of vegeta-
                         tion present on dunes help to determine the degree to which the dune will absorb
                         wave energy.


                         2. Sand Replenishment. Coastal primary sand dunes are basically onshore sand
                         bars, or as noted above, reservoirs of sand. Sand is constantly being moved by
                         wind and waves between offshore sand bars, beaches, dunes and during storm
                         events, even inland. Sand eroded from dunes during high energy conditions often
                         finds its final resting place on beaches or offshore bars. These offshore bars then
                         act as sources of sand for the beach during periods of lower energy when wave ac-
                         tion tends to deposit material in the beach zone. Thus after each storm, the sand
                         originally eroded from the dune returns to the beach zone during the rebuilding
                         process.


                         3. Habitat. Coastal primary sand dunes, in their natural state, serve as a habitat
                         for a wide variety of plants. Dune vegetation is characterized by its ability to
                         withstand extremes in the natural environment and by its inability to withstand
                         man-made disturbances. The dune is a very rigorous environment for a plant.
                         Each plant must be able to survive with very limited amounts of fresh water,
                         tolerate constant salt spray and endure extreme variations in temperature. That




               8






                                                                 Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                                such vegetation hardy enough to survive all of these stresses should be so in-
                                tolerant to any additional disturbance such as trampling by people and/or vehicles
                                is explained by the fact that these plants are living close to their limit of tolerance
                                and even minor disturbances to root systems can cause such plants to die.

                                Vigorous vegetation both on the dune crest and the leeward side of the dune can
                                provide attractive habitats for some shore-dwelling animals. The most visible in-
                                habitants of dunes other than plants are various shore birds which utilize the area
                                for roosts and nesting. Dunes also support a variety of insects and occasionally
                                some small mammals and reptiles.

                                4. Aesthetics. Perhaps the most widely accepted but least quantifiable value of
                                the coastal primary sand dune is the contribution it makes to the attractiveness of
                                the coastal area. Aesthetic evaluations are a personal prerogative and therefore dif-
                                ficult to utilize as the basis for management decisions. Nevertheless, the General
                                Assembly has taken note of the contribution dunes make to the enhancement of
                                the shore experience. It is therefore, appropriate for development adjacent to dune
                                areas to be considerate of that contribution.



                      Section III


                           Consequences of Altering Coastal Pr              imary Sand Dunes


                           Simply stated, the consequences of altering coastal primary sand dunes are a loss of or
                           diminution of the values discussed above. Unfortunately, there is very little information
                           enabling quantitative assessments of the loss or degradation of these values from any
                           proposed development in the dunes area. In the absence of such information decisions
                           regarding such development must be based on experience and reasoned judgements
                           with each decision being made on a case-by-case basis. It is, however, possible to rank
                           the consequences of alteration in terms of the scale of alteration:

                                1. Leveling dunes. The leveling of a dune is certainly the most extreme altera-
                                tion of that feature which can be undertaken. In such instances, the buffering
                                capability provided by the natural levee of the dune and its source of sand are
                                obliterated. This exposes adjacent and neighboring properties to substantially
                                greater risk of flooding and causes a reduction in available sand for the adjacent
                                beach zone as well as destabilization of the flanks of adjacent dunes.

                                2. Displacement of the dune. The natural position of a dune is the result of a
                                balance of natural forces at any given time. Generally dunes are found in areas
                                where they are attacked by waves only during storm events and then only after
                                the backshore has been eroded by wave action. Displacement of a dune to a more




                                                                                                                  9






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                        seaward location exposes it to wave energy more often thereby accelerating erosion
                        of the dune. Structures built on or behind the dune may then be exposed to wave
                        action or inundated with sand as the dune migrates to a position in which it is
                        again in equilibrium with wind and wave forces. Equally important, however, is
                        the breach that such relocation causes in the dune line and the hazard such a
                        breach poses for both the property located behind the relocated dune and adjacent
                        properties as well. Displacement of a dune to a more landward location for
                        whatever reasons would create the same type of breaching problem as well as af-
                        fording no buffering capability for any property located seaward of it. Such dis-
                        placement also causes a loss of sand for natural beach replenishment.

                        3. Building on the beach backshore. Building on the beach backshore, seaward
                        of the dune can lead to adverse consequences in three ways:

                             a. During construction, the dune may be reduced in elevation for access to the
                             building site. Should a storm occur during this period, the dune may be
                             breached with the impacts discussed above.

                             b. After construction, the structure itself may interfere with wind patterns
                             over the dune crest causing deflation or wind scouring.

                             c. Pedestrian traffic over the dune can cause the loss of vegetation anchoring
                             the dune unless a dune overwalk, following the natural contour of the dune,
                             is provided.


                        4. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic across the dune. The principal conse-
                        quence of cross dune traffic is that, after the vegetation has been killed, wind
                        transport of sand can very quickly excavate a crossdune blowout resulting in a lo-
                        calized weakness.


                        5. Building on the crest or foreface of the dune. Building on the foreface of
                        the dune is very likely to result in alteration of the dune contours during construc-
                        tion, sand removal from channelization of wind around the structure and an in-
                        crease of pedestrian traffic over the dune. During construction, wind blown sand
                        may become a nuisance to other nearby properties.

                        6. Building on the dune backface. Since the dune backface is the natural zone
                        of deposition in the dune system, construction in this zone is less deleterious to the
                        functions of the dunes so long as significant amounts of material are not ex-
                        cavated. The presence of the structure will modify the wind flow but to the extent
                        the structure is in the lee of the dune this may be minimized.

                  The preceding comments are directed principally toward destructive alterations of coas-
                  tal primary sand dunes. It is possible to enhance dunes. Basically, these alterations are
                  efforts to create more extensive, better stabilized dunes. Encouraging the natural




             10






                                                                  Coastal Primary Sand Dunes IBeaches Guidelines



                           development of a dune is not an exact science, but there is information available about
                           the efficacy of a variety of methods. Just as with the construction of any other structure,
                           seeking advice from a professional is advisable. The benefits accrue in terms of lessen-
                           ing costs associated with coastal storms.

                           The consequences of altering existing natural dunes are, in some respects, dependent
                           on where the dune is located. This is particularly true of the dune's role as a protection
                           and beach replenishment device. Within Virginia, coastal dunes are found in three
                           broad geographic areas: the oceanside of the Eastern Shore, the Atlantic beaches south
                           of the Bay entrance, and the shoreline of the Bay proper.

                           Eastern Shore - Oceanside

                           The oceanside of the Eastern Shore contains by far the largest complement of dunes in
                           Virginia. Accomack and Northampton Counties have a total of about 85.3 miles of coas-
                           tal dunes associated almost exclusively with the barrier islands. Barrier islands are
                           among the most dynamic of coastal features.

                           As the Barrier Islands absorb the storm induced wave energy, they are frequently
                           breached or overtopped and the sand is spread over the lee-side marshes. With the
                           onset of normal weather, the dunes rebuild. As the Barrier Islands erode, the entire en-
                           semble, beach-dune-washover, also retreats. Thus, the complete beach morphology is
                           preserved. For the most part, the dunes are of low elevation and susceptible to even
                           moderate storm activity. Given the many inlets in the system, the dunes do not have a
                           primary function of flood control. They do, however, help control the washover proces-
                           ses. Given the low-lying elevations, any development on the Barrier Islands may result
                           in inordinately high private or public costs. (See Section VID.

                           Virginia Beach

                           The second general area includes the Atlantic coast beaches south of the entrance to
                           Chesapeake Bay. These beaches lie almost entirely within the City of Virginia Beach.
                           The city contains about 38.5 miles of dunes. In contrast to the Barrier Island dunes, the
                           Virginia Beach sand dunes include some under the most intense developmental pres-
                           sure anywhere in Virginia.

                           Because of the tremendous development along the coastline, it is in this area that
                           primary sand dunes have their greatest potential for protecting life and property. In
                           order for the dunes to offer the maximum flood and erosion protection, they must be
                           maintained as a relatively uniform, uninterrupted dune line. Each time a dune eleva-
                           tion is lowered or a portion of the dune line is completely removed, the protective
                           capabilities of the dune are compromised not only at that site, but for adjacent areas as
                           well.






               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                    The challenge is to accommodate the property owner's desire for access to the beach
                    while retaining the integrity of the dune system. Repeated experience has established
                    that construction on the dune is undesirable. Even open-pile structures lead to changes
                    in wind and sand deposition patterns in the area. Frequently, this results in a local
                    deflation of the dune. In the Virginia Beach area, loss of the primary dune line integrity
                    could have its most significant consequences in terms of loss of life and property.

                    A second consequence of modifying dunes in the Virginia Beach area is the loss of the
                    natural sand replenishment dunes provide to beaches. In an area whose principal
                    resources include an attractive beach, the value of a viable dune system can easily be
                    appreciated. The costly and continuous efforts of artificial beach nourishment are a par-
                    tial result of sand dunes having been previously destroyed.

                    Chesapeake Bay Shores

                    There are scattered dune areas throughout much of the Virginia Bay shoreline. They
                    can be found in: Norfolk, Hampton, Virginia Beach, Mathews County, Lancaster Coun-
                    ty, Northumberland County, and Northampton and Accomack Counties on the Eastern
                    Shore. The Chesapeake Bay shoreline in Virginia Beach, Norfolk's Ocean View section
                    and some of Hampton's shoreline possess the same development pressures as the Atlan-
                    tic shoreline of Virginia Beach. The consequences of dune alteration are therefore identi-
                    cal in those areas. The other localities differ in the type and location of dunes generally
                    found there. Typically, the dunes are part of a less extensive beach system and frequent-
                    ly occur in areas with much less developmental pressure than the more urban settings.
                    In these areas, loss of a dune's protective capabilities can have consequences for both
                    life and property similar to that in Virginia Beach, and can impact other natural resour-
                    ces as in the Barrier Islands.



              Section IV


                    Recommended Guidelines When Altering Coastal Primary Sand
                    Dunes


                    In adopting the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Act, the General Assembly established the
                    following standards for construction on sand dunes:

                    "No permanent alteration or construction upon any coastal primary sand dune shall
                    take place which would:

                         (a) impair the natural functions of the dune as described by the Act

                         (b) physically alter the contour of the dune




               12






                                                                   Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                                 (c) destroy vegetation growing on the dune

                           Activities contrary to these standards will be permitted only if the wetlands board or
                           Commission finds that there will be no significant adverse ecological impact from the
                           proposal, or that granting a permit for the proposal is clearly necessary and consistent
                           with the public interest."

                           It is apparent from a reading of the policy and standards of the Act that the General As-
                           sembly did not intend a prohibition on all activity in the dunes area. Instead, the legis-
                           lators sought a careful balancing of the public and private benefits and detriments of
                           each proposal. Some proposed development in the dunes area can be accommodated by
                           utilizing proper location and design methods. Each proposal will likely be unique with
                           respect to the necessity for the project and its probable effects on the beneficial value of
                           dunes; therefore, criteria must be applied on a case-by-case basis. The objective of these
                           criteria is to provide guidance which will direct development into an accommodation
                           with the ecology of the coastal primary sand dune.




                           Guidelines


                           A. Provided the beneficial attributes of coastal primary sand dunes as discussed above
                           are not significantly disturbed, alteration of dunes may be justified in order to:

                                 1. Construct water access dependent facilities which must pass over the coastal
                                 primary sand dune for such access.

                           Such construction as might be allowed in item 1 above must be constructed in a manner
                           which will minimize alteration of the dune slope during and after construction.
                           Encroachment on the backside of a primary dune should be limited to the minimum
                           necessary. In addition to other requirements that may apply for construction, only struc-
                           tures with open pile foundations should be constructed.

                                 Rationale: The requirement that any construction on the dune backside must util-
                                 ize an open pile foundation design is based upon consideration of the dynamics of
                                 dune movement, the compatibility of housing within the dune system, and the
                                 need to protect life and property within the fastland fringing the beach zone.

                                 During times of severe storms, the entire primary dune system may yield to ex-
                                 cavation by elevated water levels accompanied by high waves. Structures on slab
                                 foundations or designs other than open piling may be expected to exhibit struc-
                                 tural failure. Such slab foundations also generally require the excavation of the
                                 dune backface for placement and do not allow for the natural migration of the
                                 dune. During periods of normal weather and sea state, and during poststorm
                                 periods of natural dune rebuilding, the backside of the dune is a zone of sand




                                                                                                                    13






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                        deposition. Structures elevated on open piling foundations will be less susceptible
                        to burial by encroachment and deposition.

                  Bridging the dunes to gain access for certain water dependent activities may be per-
                  mitted when those activities are deemed necessary. In such cases, elevated open piling
                  foundations will minimize disturbance of natural dune building processes.

                  It should be noted that a requirement for open pile foundations is consistent with exist-
                  ing requirements of the National Flood Insurance Act.

                  B. Alteration of coastal primary sand dunes is ordinarily notjustified:

                        1. for purposes of activities which can be accommodated without encroachment
                        into the dune area.


                        Rationale: It is clearly the intent of the legislature to protect the primary sand
                        dunes from unnecessary despoliation. Therefore, activities which have no inherent
                        need to be immediately adjacent to the shore or for which there is sufficient room
                        landward of the coastal primary sand dune may notrequire modification of the
                        dune.


                        2. where the construction is proposed on the dune crest or seaward of the dune
                        crest.                                             I.                                               0
                        Rationale: The beach backshore is the primary sand supply for the primary dune
                        and the foreface and crest of the deposit are the most active transport zones in the
                        dune system. Construction on the backshore, frontal face and crest is thus likely to
                        disrupt the transport system. In particular, construction on the crest and/or fron-
                        tal face will cause local deflation of the sand elevations causing local weaknesses
                        in the integrity of the dune system.

                        3. where the dune location must be modified in order to accommodate the proposed
                        construction activity.

                        Rationale: The natural location of the primary dune is the result of all beach
                        processes. The natural dune position is just beyond the reach of normal beach
                        modulations. Relocation of the dune by artificial means to a more seaward or
                        landward location is likely to result in a loss of the sand stored in the dune. This
                        will reduce the integrity of the dune line and compromise the ability of the dune to
                        protect against storm flooding and erosion.

                        4. where alteration of the dune would likely result in damage to neighboring
                        property owners.

                        Rationale: Construction within a primary coastal dune may lead to weaknesses
                        in the protective attributes of the system. Under severe storm attack, the weak-




             14






                                                                   Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                                 ness may lead to failure causing that site to become the focus of wave overwash ac-
                                 tivity. The breach in the system can reasonably be expected to widen to neighbor-
                                 ing properties and cause otherwise avoidable damage.

                                 In addition, during the periods of dune regrowth, the new sand deposits may
                                 encroach upon the developed zone of the neighboring lots.


                      Section V


                            Considerations for Construction and Mitigation Activities in the
                            Area of Coastal Primary Sand Dunes


                            Due to the constantly changing nature of dune's and the possible wind, wave and scour
                            action they may be subjected to, the design, location selection, and construction of struc-
                            tures in dune areas should be done by qualified professionals. As a recommended mini-
                            mum, all elements of beach front structures, including the foundation and
                            non-structural fastenings and components, should be designed to withstand the wind
                            and wave forces of a 100 year storm. The first habitable floor of a building should be
                            elevated on a piling foundation to a height above the crest of the 100 year design wave.
                            Any construction in the space below the first floor should incorporate breakaway walls
                            intended to collapse under stress without jeopardizing the structural support of the
                            building. The piling foundation should safely transmit to the ground the full vertical
                            and horizontal loads imposed on the superstructure by 100 year design storms. It
                            should present as slender a profile as possible while being durable enough to resist
                            storm loads, which may include the impact of floating debris. Pilings should be spaced
                            such that no one row of piles is subject to significant wave forces at any one time and
                            the spacing should provide for unhindered movement of water and debris between piles.
                            Pilings should be of a circumference which minimizes induced concentration of wave
                            force and consequent erosion and scour at the base, yet they should penetrate deeply
                            enough (5 to 20 feet below mean sea level) and have sufficient strength to safely support
                            the superstructure when the surrounding material is eroded down to the lowest predict-
                            able level. The foundation should be of a material which will resist deterioration in a
                            corrosive marine environment. Structures with large areas in contact with the ground,
                            such as swimming pools, decks, and slab foundations, should be discouraged. The
                            ground below the first habitable floor should not be paved or altered, however, shell or
                            marl are suitable when used to stabilize driveways. Telephone and electric lines should
                            be located underground in water proof conduits laid in protected areas not subject to
                            erosion. Water and sewage facilities should also be located in protected areas not sub-
                            ject to erosion.

                            Vegetation is the most effective protection for the land against the sea in establishing
                            and maintaining a coastal position, and for that reason, during permitted construction,



                                                                                                                     15






              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                   all precautions should be taken to retain as much natural vegetation as possible on the
                   dunes and upper beaches. When walkways and platforms are located over a dune sys-
                   tem, they should be elevated sufficiently to provide for the continued healthy growth of
                   the vegetation below (3 feet minimum). Restoration of destroyed dunes can be ac-
                   complished by creating fills. using slat or brush fencing or by moving upper beach sand
                   by machine. Both procedures should be followed by long-term plantings of vegetation to
                   replace that which was destroyed and to stabilize the dune. For the restoration of a long
                   foredune, the fence should be aligned parallel to primary dunes in the vicinity and some-
                   what parallel to the drift line berm of the upper beach. The fence should be far enough
                   back to allow the wind to move an adequate supply of sand against it, and placed so as
                   not to bury existing vegetation. To build fills and help reform dune topography in
                   smaller areas, fences should be built across the direction of prevailing winds. The newly
                   created fill material should then be stabilized with plantings.


              Section VI



                   Beaches


                   A. Definition. In the 1989 change to the Coastal Sand Dune Protection Act, the term
                   beach is defined and added in place of reach. All references to reaches were dropped.
                   Beach is defined as:


                        1. the shoreline zone comprised of unconsolidated sandy material upon which
                        there is a mutual interaction of the forces of erosion, sediment transport and
                        deposition that extends from the low water line landward to where there is a
                        marked change in either material composition or pbysiograpbic form such as a
                        dune, bluff or marsh, or

                        2. where no such change can be identified, to the line of woody vegetation (usually
                        the effective limit of storm waves), or the nearest impermeable man-made struc-
                        ture, such as a bulkhead, revetment or paved road.

                   Beaches have therefore been added to the legislative declaration of policy as an area to
                   preserve and protect in the same fashion as Coastal Primary Sand Dunes.

                   B. Applicability. Under the foregoing definition, all coastal and bay beaches in Vir-
                   ginia would be included since they all are composed of unconsolidated sandy soil and ex-
                   perience the "... mutual interaction of erosion, sediment transport and deposition...".

                   Identifying the landward limit of a beach should present minimal problems. In most
                   cases a dune, bulkhead or other solid man-made structure will mark the upper limit of
                   the beach. Where none of these are found, the landward limit will be marked by woody




              16






                                                                    Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                             vegetation such as wild black cherry (Prunus serotina) Ehrhart, live oak Quercus vir-
                             giniana) Miller, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana) L., wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) L.,
                             loblolly pine Winus taeda) L., bayberry (Myrica pensylvanicum) Loisel, poison ivy (Rhus
                             radicans) L., and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) L.

                             In evaluating an application to use or develop property which meets the "beach" defini-
                             tion, Sections IV and V of these Guidelines contain information which can be utilized in
                             arriving at the appropriate decision.

                             C. Decision Process. The wetlands and dunes protection programs have been success-
                             ful largely because of the conscientious adherence of local boards and VMRC to estab-
                             lished policy standards and guidelines. Similar careful adherence to a rule of
                             reasonableness in administering "beaches" will assure the development of a decision
                             record which can successfully sustain an appeal should one result.


                       Section VII


                             Virginia Marine Resources Commission Barrier Island Policy


                             (Rev. October 25, 1990)





                             A. Introduction


                                  1. Definitions. For the purpose of this regulation, the definitions contained
                                  within Section 62.1-13.22 of the code of Virginia apply. In addition, the following
                                  words and terms when used in these regulations, shall have the following meaning
                                  unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

                                       Barrier Islands - means elongated narrow landforms consisting largely of
                                       unconsolidated and shifting sand, fronted on one side by the ocean and on the
                                       other by a bay or marshland which separates them from the mainland.

                                       Dune Crest - means the highest elevation of the coastal primary sand dune
                                       on the lot as determined in consultation with the Virginia Institute of Marine
                                       Science.


                                       Local 100-year long-term recession rate - means calculating the average
                                       shoreline recession over fixed one-mile intervals averaged over the period be-
                                       tween surveys of 100 years or more.





                                                                                                                      17






               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                          2. Background. Barrier islands are transient landforms. Their dynamic and un-
                          stable nature poses significant risk to life and property located there. Scientific
                          evidence placed before the Marine Resources Commission supports a finding that
                          some of Virginia's barrier islands, including Cedar Island, are more fragile, more
                          unstable, and pose even greater risk to life and property than many other coastal
                          barriers due to their sand-deficient character. In addition, barrier islands are
                          themselves significant natural resources that contain a number of specific features
                          (coastal primary sand dunes, wetlands, and vast stretches of state-owned sandy
                          beaches) including natural heritage resources and threatened or endangered
                          species that are recognized by the General Assembly for their natural value and
                          are protected by law. This policy applies to the barrier island systems on the
                          seaside of the Virginia portion of the southern Delmarva peninsula, and is not in-
                          tended to cover military activities essential to national security, or the construc-
                          tion, operation, maintenance or rehabilitation of Coast Guard facilities or access
                          thereto. This exclusion does not obviate compliance with other applicable
                          provisions of the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act.

                          Survival of these barrier islands often depends on the ability of sand to wash
                          across the island naturally in concert with the local wind and wave climate. The
                          sand is then protected from loss offshore and provides a means of perpetuating the
                          island, albeit in a more landward location. Activities which adversely affect this in-
                          teraction can have an extremely detrimental impact on the island as well as the
                          structure, form and function of its dune system. The artificial accumulation of
                          sand along the oceanside of an island can make it more susceptible to loss offshore
                          during a storm. Once such a loss occurs, the sand then becomes unavailable for
                          washover and for the continued landward migration of the island. Houses, sand
                          fences and similar structures can also alter wind patterns; this alteration impedes
                          the wind transport of sand across the island. Accumulations adjacent to these im-
                          pediments can be lost offshore as the shoreline continues to recede, leading to an
                          increased rate of recession and a narrowing of the island. In addition, many of the
                          Commonwealth's rarest species depend on the continuation of natural processes
                          that currently exist on barrier islands. Consequently, they are threatened by any
                          interference with those processes. The implementation of the policies and
                          guidelines set forth in this document will support a fuller achievement of the pur-
                          poses of the Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act (Section 10 1. 1-209 et. seq. of the
                          Code of Virginia), the Virginia Endangered Species Act (Section 29.1-563 et. seq. of
                          the Code of Virginia) and the Virginia Endangered Plant and Insect Species Act
                          (Section 3.1-1020 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia).


                          Two of the main natural features of barrier islands are natural dunes and
                          washover areas, both of.which are included in the statutory definition of a coastal
                          primary.sand dune as a "mound of unconsolidated sandy soil which is contiguous
                          to mean high water, whose landward and lateral limits are marked by a change in
                          grade from ten percent or greater to less than ten percent, and upon any part of




               18






                                                                         Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                                     which is growing" certain designated plants as listed in Section 62.1-13.22 of the
                                     Code of Virginia. Given the particular combination of risks to both natural values
                                     and life and property posed by development on barrier islands, the Commission
                                     finds it necessary and appropriate to establish a policy and supplemental
                                     guidelines to assist landowners and decision makers alike in shaping barrier is-
                                     land uses in a manner that preserves and protects the values of Coastal Primary
                                     Sand Dunes as set forth by the General Assembly.

                               B. Permits Required

                                     1. Applications for New Development

                                          a. No construction or any other activity which has the potential for encroach-
                                          ing on or otherwise damaging coastal primary sand dunes or state-owned
                                          beaches shall occur without review and approval by the Marine Resources
                                          Commission (Commission) or a local wetland board, or both. Consequently, a
                                          permit application must be submitted for any such construction or other ac-
                                          tivity. Each application shall include:

                                                (1) A certified survey of the site which is representative of current condi-
                                                tions showing:

                                                      W One-foot contours relative to local mean high water, commenc-
                                                      ing at that line and proceeding through the site to the first wet-
                                                      lands vegetation,

                                                      (ii) Specific location for all proposed structures including septic sys-
                                                      tem and drainfields,

                                                      (iii) Size, configuration and design of access points,

                                                      (iv) Location of any other activity which may affect coastal primary
                                                      sand dunes or State-owned shore, and

                                                      (v) A dune crest, determined in consultation with the Virginia In-
                                                      stitute of Marine Science, which identifies the highest elevation of
                                                      the coastal primary sand dune on the lot.

                                                (2) A copy of both a valid building permit and septic or other wastewater
                                                handling or disposal system permit.

                                          b. All lot pins and proposed construction locations, drainfield sites and access
                                          points shall be staked and tied to suitable reference points.







                                                                                                                              19






               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                              c. In its review of the application, the Commission (or a local wetlands board)
                              will determine the correctness of the dune crest and will establish a mini-
                              mum setback necessary to prevent encroachment in or damage to the dune or
                              interference with the natural processes of dune growth.

                         2. Loss of Structures and Applications for Redevelopment. When a struc-
                         ture is destroyed or damaged by natural events such that the structure is con-
                         demned by health officials or local building officials, reconstruction in that location
                         may not be authorized. Submission of a new application and evaluation as if no
                         structure were present will be required. In the event a structure is damaged
                         beyond repair and is no longer habitable, or damaged and not restored to a usable
                         state within one year, the owner of record shall be responsible for the complete
                         removal of all vestiges of the structure and materials resulting therefrom, includ-
                         ing the septic tank, distribution box and drainfields in their entirety, or as directed
                         by the State or local Department of Health. The owner of the lot shall restore the
                         area to as natural a state as possible.

                   C. Supplemental Guidelines


                         I.Structures


                              a. No permanent structure, other than those already specifically allowed by
                              law or provided for in Section C.2.b below for purposes of permanent access,
                              will be permitted seaward of the crest of the coastal primary sand dune. No
                              permanent alteration of the coastal primary sand dune will be permitted, ex-
                              cept in accordance with the standards set forth in the Coastal Primary Sand
                              Dunes Act.


                              b. Since it is well established that the coastal primary sand dunes and the is-
                              lands themselves recede continually westward at a reasonably predictable
                              rate, and that excessive vehicular and pedestrian use will increase the
                              fragility of coastal primary sand dunes or impact upon significant natural
                              resources, development must be limited to no more than low density single
                              family use on each platted parcel. Uses other than single family dwellings
                              can clearly be characterized as "unnecessary and inconsistent with the public
                              interest considering all material factors."

                              c. The density of structures and the percent of the shoreline frontage oc-
                              cupied by those structures are critical to minimizing the impact they have on
                              sand migration across the island. Data concerning the development on bar-
                              rier islands indicates that adverse impacts may be minimized when no more
                              than 25% of the islands' linear shoreline is occupied by structures. This factor
                              shall be considered in evaluating the individual and cumulative impacts of
                              each permit application. In considering permit applications, the following
                              guidelines shall be followed:




              20






                                                                       Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                                              (1) There shall be adequate area within the lot that is neither sand dune
                                              (including beach and overwash areas) nor wetlands to accommodate the
                                              proposed dwelling and any appurtenant structures, including attendant
                                              sanitary facilities.

                                              (2) Minimum frontage for a lot on the ocean capable of supporting a
                                              single-family vacation cottage shall be 100 feet.

                                              (3) Minimum side yard requiremenis shall be 30 feet.

                                              (4) The setback from the dune crest for all structures including septic
                                              systems shall be 20 times the local 100 year long-term annual shoreline
                                              recession rate. The dune crest shall be defined as the location of the
                                              highest elevation of the coastal primary sand dune, beach or washover
                                              located on the lot.


                                              (5) The maximum allowable square footage for the first floor of a single
                                              family dwelling on a 100 foot lot shall be 900 square feet and for a 200
                                              foot lot, 1800 square feet, including porches, decks, and other appur-
                                              tenances. Houses with first floors larger than these will not be con-
                                              sidered necessary economic development.

                                              (6) The maximum height of a dwelling shall be 25 feet measured from
                                              the base of the first floor to the peak of the roof.

                                              (7) All dwellings shall be constructed on elevated open pilings a mini-
                                              mum of ten feet above grade. No enclosures will be permitted below the
                                              first floor.


                                              (8) An appropriate identification number shall be affixed to all septic
                                              tanks made of nonbiodegradable plastic materials to aid in their iden-
                                              tification.


                                              (9) Exceptions to these requirements may be authorized in individual
                                              cases. No such exception shall be authorized unless the Commission
                                              finds:


                                                   W That the strict application of the requirement would produce
                                                   undue hardship, and

                                                   (ii) That the authorization of such exception will not result in sig-
                                                   nificant detriment to barrier islands, their natural resources, or ad-
                                                   jacent property.







                                                                                                                          21






               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines




                                d. Evidence of cumulative environmental impacts of existing and proposed
                                structures, as well as the secondary impacts resulting from their use, shall be
                                considered in passing upon any application for a permit.


                          2. Access


                                a. No cuts through the dune will be permitted. Temporary vehicular access
                                for purposes of construction will be permitted only by open-pile or "corduroy"
                                ramps. Permits for temporary vehicular access will be limited as necessary to
                                protect significant natural resources. At expiration of the authorized term all
                                structures, except as noted in subdivision b below, must be removed and the
                                dune restored to its pre-construction contours and revegetated. All plans for
                                temporary construction access must be specified in the application for any
                                construction permit.

                                b. Permanent vehicular access across the dune will be permitted only by "cor-
                                duroy" or open-pile vehicular ramps which allow the natural process of dune
                                growth and migration to occur. An open-pile or "corduroy" ramp developed for
                                purposes of construction access may remain in place for permanent access if
                                it meets the above criteria and is specifically approved. All plans for per-
                                manent access must be specified in the application for any construction per-
                                mit.


                                c. Each dwelling will be limited to a maximum of one vehicle for access to and
                                from the island's landings. All vehicles shall be subject to the following condi-
                                tions:


                                      (1) Each vehicle shall have a no-cost annually renewable permit to
                                      travel on the beach. The owner shall attest at the time of renewal the
                                      vehicle's status and condition.


                                      (2) The permit number for each vehicle shall be displayed in two foot
                                      high letters on the roof and sides of the vehicle.

                                      (3) When a vehicle for a particular dwelling is no longer functional, it
                                      must be removed from the island. Evidence of its removal must be
                                      provided prior to the issuance of a permit for a new vehicle.

                                      (4) All driving will be limited to the intertidal zone and between there
                                      and approved dune crossovers. Vehicular use of the beach at periods
                                      greater than four hours either side of low water shall be considered a
                                      violation of this section.










              22






                                                                     Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                                             (5) All bird nesting areas posted by the Virginia Department of Game
                                             and Inland Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Department of
                                             Conservation and Recreation shall be off limits to all vehicles.

                                             (6) No all terrain vehicles (ATVs) will be permitted on barrier islands.

                                             (7) Evidence of vehicular use in areas other than those authorized shall
                                             be cause for revocation of the permit and a requirement that the vehicle
                                             be removed from the island.


                                             Any person having his or her permit revoked shall be precluded from
                                             reapplication for a one-year period.

                                  S. Roads. No roads or trails will be permitted on or across any coastal primary
                                  sand dune or in any wetland.

                                  4. Sand Movement. No artificial relocation of sand will be permitted.

                                  5. Shore Hardening. Structures normally associated with or used for shoreline
                                  protection or erosion control, including but not limited to bulkheads, riprap, revet-
                                  ments, gabion baskets, sand bags, groins and jetties, or any other hardening of the
                                  shoreline will not be permitted under any circumstances.

                                  6. Point Source Discharges. No point source discharge pipe, structures or other
                                  devices will be permitted.

                                  7. Bond Requirement. A reasonable bond or letter of credit will be required prior
                                  to granting any permit to assure restoration of any temporary alteration of the
                                  coastal primary sand dune including, but not limited to, regrading to the original
                                  elevation, resprigging with appropriate vegetation and removal of any and all con-
                                  struction debris.


                                  8. Sand Fence. The use of sand fencing or other artificial barriers is discouraged
                                  because of its interference with the natural sand transport and migration on bar-
                                  rier islands.


                                  9. Solid Waste. All solid waste generated on barrier islands must be removed and
                                  disposed of appropriately on the mainland.

                                  10. Pets. In order to prevent unrestricted roaming which may result in the distur-
                                  bance of, or depredation to wildlife, domestic pets must (a) be restrained or under
                                  the control of their owner at all times; (b) shall not be allowed off of the owner's
                                  property except under leash; and (c) shall not be abandoned on a barrier island.







                                                                                                                        23






               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines



                          11. Endangered Species. Encroachment upon the nesting sites of threatened
                          and endangered species identified by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland
                          Fisheries or Department of Conservation and Recreation is prohibited. Evidence of
                          impact or potential impact on threatened and endangered species shall be con-
                          sidered in passing upon any application for a permit.

                          12. Landscaping. The planting of exotic species or introduction of non-native
                          fauna are impermissible. Broadcast spraying of pesticides or herbicides are imper-
                          missible except when necessary to protect the public health or safety as decreed by
                          the appropriate public health official.

                    D. Public Hearings

                    The public bearing required by ï¿½ 6 of the model ordinance may be held in Newport
                    News, Virginia. Such hearing will not be scheduled until the Commission staff has
                    determined that it is in receipt of a complete application.

                    E. Comments/Advisory Notes

                          1. Risks. While future events and their impacts on human activity cannot be
                          forecast with any degree of precision, experience in other coastal areas suggest a
                          proclivity to seek public assistance when catastrophic events occur or when ser-
                          vices are needed beyond the ability of private resources to provide. The Commis-
                          sion believes that any development on barrier islands should be undertaken only
                          with the full acceptance by the owners of the risks involved.

                               a. No Public Protection of Private Property. Authorization of structures
                               should in no way serve as justification for the future expenditure of public
                               resources to protect such structures.

                               b. Services. Any services which may be provided by local government to
                               promote public health, safety and general welfare must be installed, main-
                               tained and operated in a manner consistent with the policy, standards and
                               guidelines of both the Wetlands and Dunes Protection Acts.

                               c. Relocation of Structures. Once local mean high water approaches a
                               structure to within 10 times the average recession rate, a plan for its move-
                               ment/relocation must be submitted for review. No movement or relocation
                               will be permitted without the written permission of the Commission.

                          2. Interference With Natural Processes. The serious sand deficiency which cur-
                          rently exists on Virginia's barrier islands is exacerbated by any artificial manipula-
                          tion, including sand fences, which might render the supply more vulnerable to
                          export offshore or interfere with the natural movement onshore in washover areas
                          during storm events. Private property owners have even more at stake than the




               24






                                                                    Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                                  public-at-large in assuring that natural processes are not interfered with to any
                                  discernible degree.

                                  3. Value of Dune Preservation. Special emphasis is placed on the legislative
                                  declaration of public policy that coastal primary sand dunes "in their natural state
                                  serve as protective barriers from the effects of flooding and erosion caused by coas-
                                  tal storms, thereby protecting life and property."

                                       a. Accordingly, every reasonable precaution to avoid permanent alteration is
                                       expected to be exercised by all users in gaining temporary access to private
                                       property for construction or for continued access to authorized structures.

                                       b. All construction, including septic systems, shall be set back from mean
                                       high water a distance at the site to assure reasonable survival duration. Set-
                                       backs from the dune crest were specified in Section C. Lc(4) of this policy.

                                  4. Water Quality. While the Commission believes that properly functioning septic
                                  systems in the limited density anticipated will have no measurable effect, failing
                                  systems or greater numbers than now forecast could impact important public
                                  shellfish growing areas. Therefore, staff will request at least biannually from the
                                  State Health Department an assessment of the cumulative impact and/or
                                  catastrophic failure of septic systems they have authorized.

                            F. Policy with Regard to Private Restrictive Agreements

                            In addition to the above guidelines and advisory comments and as an additional means
                            to reasonably "preserve and protect coastal primary sand dunes and beaches and to
                            prevent their despoliation and destruction," and to help achieve the other purposes set
                            forth by the General Assembly in the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act, the
                            Commission endorses and looks favorably upon restrictive private covenants which "ac-
                            commodate necessary economic development in a manner consistent with the protection
                            of (coastal primary sand dunes)." For example, the Commission encourages restrictive
                            private covenants which:

                                  1. Protect the "natural habitat for coastal fauna", "wildlife habitat," and "vegeta-
                                  tion which stabilizes (Coastal Primary Sand Dunes)."

                                  2. Prohibit special exemptions or attempts to obtain such exemptions from the ap-
                                  plication of controlling statutes.

                                  3. Enhance the "scenic and recreational attractiveness of VirginWs coastal area,"
                                  protect the "important natural habitat for coastal fauna," and protect the "vegeta-
                                  tion which stabilizes such features."








                                                                                                                       25






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                       4. Require cooperation with the state and federal conservation agencies to protect
                       the ecologically significant natural resources including granting permission to post
                       critical bird nesting sites.




















































            26






                                                                   Coastal Primary Sand Dunes IBeaches Guidelines



                      Section V111


                           Coastal Dune Vegetation


                           The following dune plants commonly occupy coastal primary dunes and related habitats
                           in Virginia and adjacent states. These plants are important to the dune environment in
                           that they reduce the effects of the wind erosion and in some cases actually aid in dune
                           development. They are an integral part of coastal dune habitat and play an important
                           role in the ecological integrity of this system. Several dune species, such as American
                           Beach Grass and Sea Oats are often planted for dune stabilization or dune creation
                           projects. These two grasses have the capacity of not only surviving but stabilizing accret-
                           ing sand. When buried by sand, these grasses produce fast growing vertical rhizomes
                           (underground stems) that eventually produce a shock of leaves at the top of the dune,
                           Therefore, if a sand supply is available, a dune can grow and become stabilized through
                           the help of these grasses.

                           Most dune plants are necessarily very hardy. They must be able to withstand intense
                           heat, reflected light, saltspray, nearly sterile substrate, and strong winds. Many of
                           these species have developed specialized morphological features that have helped them
                           adapt to these adverse conditions. Despite these outstanding features, these plants are
                           highly susceptible to trampling, off-road vehicles and the like.

                           The dune plants illustrated* and described* in this section are protected by the Coastal
                           Primary Sand Dune Protection Act, Virginia Code Chapter 2.2 of Title 62.1.














                           *Reprinted with permission from the author and publisher of Plants of the Mid-Atlantit
                           Coast: a field guide. G. M. Silberborn. Illustrated by Mary Warinner. John Hopkins
                           University Press, Baltimore, Md.








                                                                                                                   27






            Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines






























































            28






                                                                   Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines







                            Sea Oats


                            Uniola paniculata L.




                            This tall, stately grass is one of the most important primary dune plants on the
                            Southeast Coast. Sea Oats ranges from Virginia to the Gulf Coast. It's robust seed head
                            (a panicle of numerous wafer-like spikelets) is easily distinguished from Beach Grass
                            which has a rather narrow, dense spike of flowers.

                            In late summer or early fall the seed head turns a bronze-yellow color whereas the
                            spike of Beach Grass matures to a dull gray. Both grasses are highly adaptive to accret-
                            ing sand, salt spray, wind and dry conditions. They are very important natural resour-
                            ces in a dune field and should not be disturbed.







































                                                                                                                   29






              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines





















































                                                   ri










              30






                                                                Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines







                          American Beach Grass


                          Ammophila breviligulata Fern.




                          This grass is the most common plant that grows on primary dunes from New England
                          to North Carolina. It has a very dense narrow flowering spike which distinguishes it
                          from other dune grasses. The spike is surrounded by a dense tuft of long, narrow and
                          pointed leaves. Beach Grass has excellent sand binding capabilities and can tolerate,
                          and even thrives to some degree, on being buried by shifting sand. Seedlings of Beach
                          Grass are often planted in dune restoration projects. only one other beach plant can
                          withstand such conditions, and that is Sea Oats Uniola paniculata which has a more
                          southern range.




































                                                                                                               31






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



























































             32






                                                                 Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines







                           Short Dune Grass


                           Running Beach Grass


                           Panicum ararum EH.




                           The grass is often found on dunes from the New England area to the Gulf Coast. Com-
                           pared to Ammophila, and Uniola, the leaves of Short Dune Grass have blue green color
                           that is quite distinguishing. The seed head is a rather sparse, narrow panicle of small el-
                           lipsoid seeds. Unlike the other two species, this grass is not as highly adapted to ac-
                           cretinq sand. Whereas the specialized growth system of Ammophila and Uniola can
                           keep up with sand build up, Panicum will eventually become buried by large amounts
                           of shifting sands. Where there are optimal growing conditions (reduced sand accretion
                           and salt spray), this grass often forms relatively dense mats of vegetation originating
                           from underground rhizomes.


































                                                                                                                33






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines































































                                   -saw


                                    7C.:



             34






                                                                  Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines






                           Seaside Goldenrod


                           Solidago sempervirens L.




                           Seaside Goldenrod is one of the most striking plants in the coastal zone during late sum-
                           mer or early fall. This tall, leafy perennial produces a spray of bright yellow blooms that
                           is typical of interior goldenrods. The leaves are dark green and fleshy and are produced
                           in profusion along the entire length of the stem which may be as much as 6 feet long. It
                           is typically found on the more stable part of the dune, on low secondary dunes or along
                           the edges of salt marshes.





































                                                                                                                 35






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines


























































             36






                                                                 Coastal Primary Sand Dunes IBeaches Guidelines






                           Dusty Miller


                           Artemisia stelleriana Besser.




                           Dusty Miller is an introduced plant that over the years has invaded and adapted well to
                           coastal dunes from Quebec to Virginia. It is commonly used as a border plant because of
                           its unusual and attractive foliage. The lobed leaves have dense whitish hairs on both
                           sides that gives the foliage a velvety appearance. As are many dune species, this plant
                           is a perennial and spreads by creeping underground stems called rhizomes. Although
                           the foliage is mostly low or creeping in posture, the plant produces a flowering stem at
                           the peak of the growing season that may be over two feet tall. This reproductive stem
                           may have a large number of flower heads. Each head bears many tiny, nearly incon-
                           spicuous flowers, This characteristic is typical of the composite or Aster family to which
                           this plant belongs.


































                                                                                                                37






            Coastal Primary Sand Dunes IBeaches Guidelines














                                                                   !@46






            38






                                                                Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



   40


                          Dune Bean


                          Beach Bean


                          Strophyostyles helvola (L.) Ell.




                          Dune Bean is an annual, trailing and twining vine which occupies various habitats in
                          the dune/beacb system. It has a characteristic bean or legume flower which is usually
                          rose or purplish when mature. It also produces a typical "bean pod". The leaves are
                          divided into three separate leaflets. The combination of these three features (flower, pod
                          and leaf) will distinguish this vine from many other plants that live in the beach/dune
                          habitat. This plant is not strictly a dune species but can also be found in maritime
                          forests, and other interior, open woodland habitats.


































                                                                                                              39






            Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines




                                                                                                                    0









                                                I



                                  I



                                                                                                                   0





                                                         @ I I         --,@ I-

                                  -1









                                                                                                                  0

            40






                                                                 Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines






                           Seabeach Sandwort


                           Arenaria lanuginosa (Michaux) Rohrback




                           This small plant is usually found on the margin of swales between or behind the
                           primary dunes. Sandwort appears to be too delicate for the rigorous coastal environ-
                           ment and in fact, the plants appear to be more vigorous where they are somewhat
                           protected from salt spray, excessive sand accretion and wind. The leaves are small and
                           narrow and the flowers not very conspicuous. It is found only sparingly in Virginia as
                           this area is the northern extent of its range which continues as far south as South
                           America.
















































                                                                                                                41






              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



























































              42






                                                                 Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines







                           Sea Rocket


                           Cakile edentulata (Bigelow) Hooker




                           Sea Rocket usually occupies the zone between the toe of the primary dune and wrack
                           line on the beach. Cakile is a succulent plant with fleshy stems and leaves. The small
                           flowers are usually lavender or light blue or occasionally white. Thick, fleshy fruits
                           develop late in the growing season. Although Sea Rocket does not have the sand binding
                           qualities of the beach grasses, it is indicative of this dynamic zone between dune and
                           mean high water.







































                                                                                                                 43






             Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines




























                                                                              A A













































             44






                                                                Coastal Primary Sand Dunes IBeaches Guidelines







                          Beach Heather


                          Hudsonia tometosa Nuttall




                          Beach Heather is a low, spreading shrubby plant that rarely grows over a foot tall. The
                          leaves are scale-like, somewhat resembling those of a cedar tree and are covered with
                          very short, dense hairs. The whitish hairs give these little shrubs a "mildewy" ap-
                          pearance. At the peak of the growing season, tiny yellow flowers are evident. Beach
                          Heather generally grows on somewhat moist, compacted sand which is typical around
                          the edge of swales between dunes. Hudsonia tometosa is more common in the New
                          England area but ranges as far south as North Carolina where it is found infrequently.







































                                                                                                               45






              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/ Beaches Guidelines































































             46






                                                               Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines






                         Saltmeadow Hay


                         Spartina patens (Aiton) Muhl.




                         Saltmeadow Hay is short (seldom over knee high) wirey grass that grows in dense
                         clumps on the backside (landward) of primary dunes. It is also found, sometimes
                         profusely, on lower secondary dunes, swales and higher portions of a saltmarsh where it
                         often forms dense meadows. Compared to Beach Grass and Sea Oats, it has a relatively
                         sparse, branching seed head. Its leaves are long, very narrow and are often rolled in-
                         ward (somewhat trough-like) so that they appear to be round. This mechanism helps
                         reduce water loss (excessive transpiration) in the plant. Most dune plants have adaptive
                         characteristics that help them withstand the rigorous environment of the coastal ecosys-
                         tem.

















































                                                                                                              47









                  Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                  Glossary


                       ACCRETION - growth by accumulation of new material.

                       BARRIER ISLAND - a low island which, usually in conjunction with other islands, shel-
                               ters an open area of water or marsh between itself and the mainland.

                       BACKSHORE - an area in the beach zone between mean high water and the toe of the
                               dune system.

                       BERM - that part of the beach at the upper limit of the wave wash formed by the
                               deposit of material by wave action.

                       COASTAL PRIMARY SAND DUNE - mound of unconsolidated sandy soil which is con-
                               tiguous to mean high water, whose landward and lateral limits are marked by a
                               change in grade from ten per centurn or greater to less than ten per centum,
                               and upon any part of which is growing as of July one, nineteen hundred eighty,
                               or grows thereon subsequent thereto, any one or more of the following:
                               American beach grass (Ammophilla breviligulata); beach heather (Hudsonia
                               tometosa); dune bean (Strophostylis umbellata var, paludigena); dusty miller
                               (Artemisia stelleriana); saltmeadow bay (Spartina patens); seabeach sandwort
                               (Arenaria peploides); sea oats (Uniola paniculata); sea rocket (Cakile edentula);
                               seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens); and short dune grass (Panicum
                               ararum). For purposes of this chapter, "Coastal Primary Sand Dune" shall not
                               include any mound of sand, sandy soil or dredge spoil whicb bas been deposited
                               by man for the purpose of the temporary storage of such material for later use.

                       CONTIGUOUS - bordering or adjoining, next to.

                       DEFLATION - the removal of loose material from a beach or dune by wind action.

                       DUNE BACKFACE - the zone from the crest of the dune to the point at which the dune
                               grade drops below ten percent.

                       DUNE CREST - a line connecting the highest points of a dune along its long axis.

                       DUNE LINE - the line established by several dunes positioned next to one another.

                       DUNE TOE - a zone on the seaward face of the dune marked by a significant change in
                               grade.

                       FASTLAND - the comparatively stable upland area adjacent to the shoreline.







                 48






                                                              Coastal Primary Sand Dunes lBeaches Guidelines



                         FORESHORE - that part of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at
                                 high tide and the ordinary low water mark.

                         GRADE - as used in the Sand Dune Act, the term refers to the rate of change in eleva-
                                 tion progressing across a dune; grade is determined by dividing the absolute in-
                                 crease or decrease in the vertical distance occurring over any measured
                                 horizontal distance as long as both measures are in the same units.

                         LANDWARD LIMIT - in the Act, the onshore boundary of the dune.

                         LATERAL LIMIT - in the Act, the ends of the dune usually found lying perpendicular to
                                 the shoreline or the dune boundaries normal to the long axis of the dune.

                         MEAN HIGH WATER - the average height of high waters over the previous nineteen
                                 year period.

                         MORPHOLOGY - the form and structure of a dune or dune vegetation.

                         OFFSHORE BAR - one (or more) sand bar(s) running roughly parallel to the shoreline.

                         ONE HUNDRED YEAR STORM - that storm event which, on the average, may be ex-
                                 pected to occur once in one hundred years.

                         OPEN PILE FOUNDATION - a foundation composed entirely of large poles driven into
                                 the ground which support a structure above ground level.

                         STORM SURGE - the additional depth of water above mean high water which accom-
                                 panies coastal storms.

                         TRANSITION ZONE - that area in which physical and/or biological features charac-
                                 teristic of two adjacent areas (e.g., beach and uplands) can both be found.

                         UNCONSOLIDATED - in the Sand Dune Act, sediments which do not bind together.

                         WASHOVER DEPOSIT - the material deposited by the passing of water over the beach
                                 onto the fastland.




















                                                                                                           49







  0



                                Wetlands
                 Mitigation- Compensation
                                    Policy



                   Virginia Marine Resources Commission
  is




                                  VR 450-01-0051

















  0






             Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy



             Section 1. Definitions


                  The following words, when used in these guidelines, shall have the following meaning
                  unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

                  "Compensation" means actions taken which have the effect of substituting some
                  form of wetland resource for those lost or significantly disturbed due to a permitted
                  development activity; generally habitat creation or restoration. Compensation is a form
                  of mitigation.

                  "Mitigation" means all actions, both taken and not taken, which eliminate or
                  materially reduce the adverse effects ofa proposed activity on the living and nonliving
                  components of a wetland system or their ability to interact.


             Section 2. Policy


                  In spite of the passage of the Virginia Wetlands Act and the Federal Water Pollution
                  Control Act in 1972, the pressures to develop lands, including wetlands along Virginia's
                  shoreline, have continued to accelerate as evidenced by the increasing number of permit
                  applications being submitted. At the same time scien'tific research has demonstrated
                  that certain wetlands can be established or reestablished in areas where wetlands are
                  not found at present. This has led to an increasing number of proposals calling for the
                  destruction of wetlands in one area in order to accommodate development, and the
                  creation of wetlands in another area in order to offset the loss of the natural wetland

                  resource.


                  Although compensating for the loss of a wetland by establishing another of equal or
                  greater area sounds very attractive in theory and has been regarded as successful in a
                  few specific cases, in general, this form of mitigation has proven difficult to successfully
                  implement. Many questions regarding the ecological soundness and feasibility of
                  substituting one habitat for another remain to be answered. In addition, a number of
                  studies have demonstrated that for various reasons the created habitats either never
                  attain the level of productivity or diversity of the natural systems they replace or
                  simply are not capable of performing the ecological functions of the undisturbed habitat.

                  Although California and Oregon now require compensation for lost wetlands on all
                  projects, states such as North Carolina and New Jersey have taken a much more
                  limited approach to the mitigation-compensation question. In general, these latter two
                  states rely on wetland compensation only as a last resort to replace wetlands whose loss
                  is highly justified and unavoidable. Virginia to this point has also taken a very
                  conservative tack with regard to the use of wetland compensation as a management tool.





             2





                                                                                                     I

                                                                       Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy



                         The Commission, and these guidelines, do not require that all wetlands lossek be
                         compensated. They do recommend, however, that compensation be required on a
                         limited basis to replace unavoidable wetlands losses. There are three main reasons for
                         this recommendation.


                         First, a literature survey and experience with implementing compensation on a
                         day-to-day basis reveal a number of significant problems with the concept itself that
                         remain to be resolved.


                         Second, there are general philosophical and technical questions regarding compensation
                         which have not been answered by the scientific community to this point in time.

                         Third, and most important, a reading of the Wetlands Act clearly indicates that the
                         General Assembly intended for the Commonwealth's wetland resources to be preserved
                         in their "natural state," and emphasized through its declaration of policy, the
                         importance of an overall ecological approach to wetlands management.

                              "The Commonwealth of Virginia hereby recognizes the unique character
                              of the wetlands, an irreplaceable natural resource which, in its natural
                              state, is essential to the ecological systems of the tidal rivers, bays and
                              estuaries of the Commonwealth." (Emphasis added)

                         The General Assembly also stated that where economic development in the wetlands is
                         clearly necessary and justified it will be accommodated while preserving the wetlands
                         resource.


                                  it is declared to be the public policy of this Commonwealth to
                              preserve the wetlands and to prevent their despoliation and destruction
                              and to accommodate necessary economic development in a manner
                              consistent with wetlands preservation." (Emphasis added)

                         In Section 62.1-13.3 of the Code of Virginia the General Assembly mandated the
                         preservation of the ecological systems within wetlands of primary ecological significance
                         and then stated:


                              "Development in Tidewater, Virginia, to the maximum extent possible,
                              shall be concentrated in wetlands of lesser ecological significance, in
                              wetlands which have been irreversibly disturbed before July one,
                              nineteen hundred seventy-two, and in areas of Tidewater, Virginia,
                              apart from the wetlands."

                         The General Assembly has spelled out clearly that "necessary economic development" is
                         to be accommodated in Tidewater, Virginia, but that the emphasis is on wetlands
                         preservation in their natural state.






                                                                                                               3






           Wetlands Mitigdtion-Compensation Policy



           Section 3. General Criteria


                It shall remain the policy of the Commonwealth to mitigate or minimize the loss of
                wetlands and the adverse ecological effects of all permitted activities through the
                implementation of the principles set forth in these Wetlands Guidelines which were
                promulgated in 1974 and revised in 1982. To determine whether compensation is
                warranted and permissible on a case-by-case basis, however, a two-tiered mechanism
                will be implemented. This dual approach will consist first of an evaluation of necessity
                for the proposed wetlands loss (See Section 4). If the proposal passes this evaluation,
                compensation will be required and implemented as set forth in the second phase, the
                Supplemental Guidelines.

                The primary thrust of combining the existing Wetlands Guidelines with the two-tiered
                compensation guidelines is to preserve the wetlands as much as possible in their
                natural state and to consider appropriate requirements for compensation only after it
                has been proven that the loss of the natural resource is unavoidable and that the project
                will have the highest public and private benefit. Commitments to preserve other
                existing wetlands shall not ordinarily be an acceptable form of compensation.


           Section 4. Specific Criteria


                In order for a proposal to be authorized to destroy wetlands and compensate for same in
                some prescribed manner, the three criteria listed below must be met. If the proposal
                cannot meet one or more of these criteria, the activity shall be denied, or must occur in
                areas apart from the wetlands. Should it satisfy all three criteria, however,
                compensation for the wetlands lost is required.

                1. All reasonable mitigative actions, including alternate siting, which would eliminate
                or minimize wetlands loss or disturbance must be incorporated in the proposal.

                2. The proposal must clearly be water-dependent in nature.

                3. The proposal must demonstrate clearly its need to be in the wetlands and its
                overwhelming public and private benefits.


           Section 5. Supplemental Guidelines


                If compensation is required, then the following guidelines should be given due
                consideration and, if appropriate, may be included as conditions of the permit:







           4






                                                                        Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy



                         1. A detailed plan, including a scaled plan view drawing, shall be submitted describing
                         the objectives of the wetland compensation, the type of wetland to be created, the mean
                         tide range at the site, the proposed elevations relative to a tidal datum, the exi act
                         location, the areal extent, the method of marsh establishment and the exact time frame
                         from initial work to completion.

                         2. Once the grading is completed at the planting site, it should be inspected by a
                         competent authority to insure that the elevations are appropriate for the vegetation to
                         be planted and that the surface drainage is effective.

                         3. The compensation plan and its implementation must be accomplished by experienced
                         professionals knowledgeable of the general and site-specific requirements for wetland
                         establishment and long-term survival.

                         4. A performance bond or letter of credit is required and shall remain in force until the
                         new wetland is successfully established; a minimum of two growing seasons.

                         5. The compensation marsh should be designed to replace as nearly as possible, the
                         functional values of the lost resource on an equal or greater basis. In general this
                         means creating a marsh of similar plant structure to that being lost. This may not be
                         the case where a lesser value marsh is involved (i.e. Group 4 or 5 wetlands). A
                         minimum 1:1 areal exchange is required in any case.

                         6. The compensation should be accomplished prior to, or concurrently with, the
                         construction of the proposed project. Before any activity under the permit may begin,
                         the permittee must own all interests in the mitigation site which are needed to carry
                         out the mitigation.

                         7. All reasonable steps must be taken to avoid or minimize any adverse environmental
                         effects associated with the compensation activities themselves.

                         8. On-site compensation is the preferred location alternative with off-site in the same
                         watershed as a consideration when on-site is not possible. Locating a compensation site
                         outside the river basin of the project is not acceptable unless it is done as part of a
                         state-coordinated program of ecological enhancement.

                         9. In selecting a compensation site, one aquatic community should not be sacrificed to
                         "create" another. In cases where dredged material must be placed overboard, the area
                         may be used to create marsh, oyster rock or improve the resource value of the bottom.

                         10. The type of plant community proposed as compensation must have a demonstrated
                         history of successful establishment in order to be acceptable.

                         11. The proposed activity should stand on its own merits in the permit review.
                         Compensation should not be used to justify permit issuance.




                                                                                                                 5






             Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy



                  12. Manipulating the plant species composition of an existing marsh community, as a
                  form of compensation, is unacceptable.

                  13. Nonvegetated wetlands should be treated on an equal basis with vegetated wetlands
                  with regard to compensation and mitigation, unless site-specific information indicates
                  one is more valuable than the other.


                  14. Both short- and long-term monitoring of compensation sites should be considered on
                  a case-by-case basis. For unproven types of compensation the applicant will be
                  responsible for funding such monitoring as is deemed necessary.

                  15. Where on-site replacement for noncommercial projects is not feasible, compensation
                  for small wetland losses (less than 1,000 sq. ft.) should be avoided in favor of
                  eliminating loss of the natural marsh to the maximum extent possible.

                  16. Conservation or other easements to be held in perpetuity should be required for the
                  compensation marsh. Easements accepted by the Commission will be processed in
                  accordance with the provisions of Section 62.1-13.17 of the Code of Virginia.

                  17. All commercial projects which involve unavoidable wetland losses should be
                  compensated.


































            6







 0



                   Criteria for the Siting
                 of Marinas or Community
                Facilities for Boat Mooring



                Virginia Marine Resources Commission


 is                       VR 450-01-0047














 0






             Boat Mooring



             Section I


                  Objective


                  As a result of increasingly intensive development through the subdivision of lands ad-
                  jacent to waters of the Commonwealth, the Commission finds it necessary to develop
                  more detailed criteria for the siting of facilities to serve the needs of boaters in order to
                  protect, conserve and manage properly the natural resources of the Commonwealth for
                  the reasonable and beneficial use of all its citizens.



             Section 11


                  Goals


                  The goals of the Commission are to:

                       1. Insure that its decisions concerning use of the Commonwealth's natural resour-
                       ces are consistent with the Constitution and laws of Virginia.

                       2. Develop and administer siting criteria consistent vith the Chesapeake Bay In-
                       itiatives and the Governor's Commitments contained in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
                       Agreement.

                       3. Maintain all fisheries resources, and where possible, enhance production on
                       both public and private currently productive or potentially productive shellfish
                       grounds.

                       4. Discourage the acquisition of private shellfish leases for any purpose other than
                       the propagation of shellfish.

                       5. Accommodate, wherever possible, all reasonable and permissible uses of State
                       waters and State-owned bottomlands.


                       6. Promote navigational safety.

                       7. Protect private riparian rights while facilitating public access to, and use of
                       State waters to the maximum practicable extent.

                       8. Promote best management practices which protect and, where possible, enhance
                       water quality.





             2







                                                                                                      Boat Mooring



                     Section III


                          Background


                          The pressures to develop shoreline property and State-owned subaqueous lands are in-
                          creasing at an unprecedented rate. Boat mooring facilities have become an attractive
                          and effective mechanism to enhance the marketing of subdivided lots in proximity to
                          State waters.


                          In the process of providing mooring facilities to serve such developments, private
                          benefits are realized but public detriments are often increased. Automatic shellfish
                          closure may result; water quality can deteriorate; habitat values can be irrevocably af-
                          fected and the character of the water body can be permanently changed.

                          The Commonwealth is historically a key shellfish producing state. Unfortunately, cur-
                          rent shellfish leasing practices encourage the acquisition of shellfish leases by
                          developers in order to eliminate or reduce opposition to seasonal shellfish closures
                          which may result from the siting of mooring facilities.

                          In order to protect public health, the Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation of the State Health
                          Department has established a policy which requires the establishment of buffer zones
                          around boat mooring facilities within which shellfish cannot be harvested for direct
                          marketing during the months of April through October. These buffer zones are as fol-
                          lows:


                                0-50 slips - 1/8 mile in all directions

                                51-100 slips - 1/4 mile in all directions


                                over 100 slips - 1/2 mile in all directions

                          As a result of this policy, the State Water Control Board, also as a matter of policy, con-
                          siders it a violation of water quality standards if a proposed facility will result in a
                          seasonal shellfish closure. The Commission is required by law to give due consideration
                          to water quality standards established by the Water Control Board and to enforce the
                          shellfish closures established by the Health Department.












                                                                                                                   3







             Boat Mooring



             Section IV


                  Policy


                  A comprehensive siting review process for boat mooring facilities requiring permits
                  from the Commission is necessary to insure that permit decisions comply with statutory
                  requirements and the legislative mandate that our natural resources be maintained
                  and conserved for present and future generations. All public and private interests will
                  be carefully considered in this review. As the size, density, complexity and range of ser-
                  vices offered by a proposed facility increase, so must the detail in design and implemen-
                  tation ofbest management practices in its siting, construction and operation.
                  Minimizing adverse environmental impacts must be the ultimate goal in all phases of
                  planning, siting construction and operation. Furthermore, the acquisition of shellfish
                  leases which may be affected by a seasonal shellfish closure around a proposed facility
                  will be given no weight and absent mitigating circumstances will be viewed as a nega-
                  tive factor by the Commission in its evaluation of the facility.


             Section V


                  Definitions


                  For the purposes of standardization, the definitions contained in Article I of Part 1 of
                  the Department of Health Regulation, VR 355-17-01; Sanitary Regulations for Marinas
                  and Boat Moorings; will pertain. For reference purposes, the following two definitions
                  are reproduced herein:

                       "Marina means any installation operating under public or private
                       ownership, which provides dockage or moorage for boats (exclusive of
                       paddle or row boats) and provides, through sale, rental or fee basis, any
                       equipment, supply or service (fuel, electricity or water) for the
                       convenience of the public or its lessee, renters or users of its facilities."

                       "Other places where boats are moored means any installation operating
                       under public or private ownership which provides dockage, moorage or
                       mooring for boats (exclusive of paddle or row boats) either on a free
                       rental or fee basis or for the convenience of the public."

                  For purposes of this document, "other place where boats are moored" and "community
                  facility for boat mooring" are interchangeable.





             4







                                                                                                     Boat Mooring




                          Additionally, since community facilities increase significantly the value of the upland
                          property they are intended to serve, the Commission has a long standing policy that
                          such facilities are classified as commercial in nature. Accordingly, only non-commercial,
                          private piers placed by individual owners of riparian lands in the waters opposite such
                          riparian lands are considered statutorily exempt from public interest review.


                     Section VI


                          General Siting Criteria


                          In addition to the criteria contained on Pages 8 and 9 of the current Subaqueous
                          Guidelines promulgated by the Commission in 1979 and revised in 1986, the following
                          should be considered by the applicant in planning and will be considered by the Com-
                          mission during the public interest review of each application for recreational boat moor-
                          ing facilities.

                               1. The physical dimensions and characteristics of the water body should be com-
                               patible with the size of the marina and the type of vessels it will house. For ex-
                               ample, a shallow cove or basin is not an appropriate site for a deep draft sailboat
                               marina.


                               2. Marinas must have sufficient upland area to provide all necessary parking,
                               stormwater management BMP's, fuel, and sanitary facilities without filling wet-
                               lands or subaqueous bottom.

                               3. All marinas should be located in areas with good natural flushing to minimize
                               the build-up of organic material and other pollutants on the bottom.

                               4. Marinas should not be sited close to areas of very high natural resource value
                               such as shellfish beds, seagrass communities and areas frequented by endangered
                               species.


                               5. The transfer of control of shellfish leases in order to accommodate marina
                               development is generally unacceptable.

                               6. Projects that by their cumulative impact will result in dense concentrations of
                               boats in one area will be critically evaluated as to their impacts on natural resour-
                               ces; however, in densely populated areas, concentration of slips in a single facility
                               may be justified to prevent disturbance at undeveloped shorelines.








                                                                                                                  5






             Boat Mooring




                   Specific Siting Guidelines

                        1. For community piers and marina facilities which are appurtenances to residen-
                        tial developments, the number of slips will not necessarily be predicated by the
                        number of units on the property.

                        2. The dredging of access channels should be limited to the minimum dimensions
                        necessary for navigation and should avoid sensitive areas such as wetlands,
                        shellfish grounds and seagrass beds.

                        3. Dredged material disposal areas for initial as well as future disposal needs
                        should be clearly defined and designated.

                        4. Dredged areas should be no more than one foot deeper than controlling depths
                        in the waterway and should be connected to natural channels of similar depth.

                        5. Piers and wharves crossing vegetated wetland and seagrass areas should be
                        limited to the minimum necessary for water access.

                        6. Where vegetated areas are crossed, the height of the pier above the substrate
                        should be equal to one foot less than its width with a three foot minimum required.

                        7. Site specific stormwater management BMP's are required (such as buffer strips,
                        grassed swales, wet detention ponds and permeable parking surfaces.)

                        8. A solid waste disposal and recovery plan with facilitated marina user access
                        must accompany marina development plans.

                        9. Sanitary facilities and pumpout facilities convenient to marina users should ac-
                        company development plans.

                        10. All fuel facilities must incorporate automatic shutoff valves and must have
                        spill contingency plans.

                        11. Methods of insuring against the discharge of wastes, gray water, fuels, bilge
                        wastes and the use of TBT paints shall be provided.

                        12. Facilities incorporating boat maintenance operations shall include plans for
                        the efficient collection and removal of sand blastingmaterial, paint chips and
                        other by-products of maintenance operations.











             6







                                                                                                       Boat Mooring



                    Section V11


                         Best Management Practices (BMPs)


                         In order to reduce discharge of non-point source pollutants into State waters, the Com-
                         mission will require the applicant to demonstrate how appropriate BMP's will be incor-
                         porated into both the upland development plan associated with the facility as well as
                         the Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Plan required by local government.

                         The Commission may require, as a condition of any permit issued, that BMP structures
                         be completed before any slips can be occupied and that the permittee cooperate fully
                         with local governmental agencies in complying with the E&S Plan, including main-
                         tenance of any required BMP structures. An appropriate surety bond or letter of credit
                         may be required to ensure proper installation, stabilization and maintenance of any
                         vegetative or structural measures.


                    Section VIII


                         Siting Criteria Check List


                         The following criteria will be considered by the Commission in determining whether,
                         and upon what condition to issue any permit for a boat mooring facility. In addition, the
                         Commission may consider other factors relevant to a specific project or application.


                         Criteria              Undesirable                        Desirable


                         Water depth           Less than 3 ft. m1w.               Greater than 3 ft. mlw

                         Salinity              Suitable for shellfish growth      Unsuitable for shellfish growth

                         Water Quality         Approved, conditionally ap-        Closed for direct marketing of
                                               proved or seasonally approved      shellfish. Little or no potential
                                               for shellfish harvesting           for future productivity.

                         Designated            Private leases or public oyster    No private leases or public
                         Shellfish Grounds     ground in proximity                ground within affected area. No
                                                                                  potential for future productivity

                         Maximum Wave          Greater than 1 ft.                 Less than 1 ft.
                         Height





                                                                                                                     7






               Boat Mooring




                     Criteria              Undesirable                          Desirable


                     Current               Greater than 1 knot                  Less than 1 knot


                     Dredging              Requires frequent dredging           Does not require frequent main-
                                                                                tenance


                                           No suitable site for dredged         Suitable site for all dredged
                                           material                             material


                     Flushing Rate         Inadequate to maintain water         Adequate to maintain water
                     (Tidal -Exchange)     quality                              quality

                     Proximity to          Gre ater than 50 ft. to              Less than 50 ft. to navigable
                     Natural or Im-        navigable water depths               channel
                     proved Channel

                     Threatened or         Present as defined in existing       Absent; project will not affect
                     Endangered            regulations, or project has
                     Species               potential to affect habitat

                     Adjacent Wet-         Cannot maintain suitable buff- Suitable buffer to be maintained
                     lands                 er


                     Navigation and        Water body difficult to              Navigation not impeded
                     Safety                navigate or presently over-
                                           crowded conditions exist


                     Existing Use of       Presently used for skiing, crab-     Not presently used for skiing,
                     Site                  bing, fishing, swimming or           fishing, swimming or other
                                           other potentially conflicting        recreational use

                                           uses


                     Submerged             Present                              Absent
                     Aquatic Vegeta-
                     tion


                     Shoreline             Bulkheading required                 Shoreline protected by natural or
                     Stabilization                                              planted vegetation or riprap

                     Erosion Control       Groins and/or jetties necessary      No artificial structures needed
                     Structures


                     Finfish Habitat       Important spawning and nurs-         Unimportant area for spawning
                     Usage                 ery area                             or nursery for any commercially
                                                                                or recreationally valuable species




               8







                                  VIMS WETLANDS PROGRAM

                                         TECHNICAL REPORTS


                                                           Contents



                       90-1   Animals of the Intertidal Sand and Mud Flats


                       90-3   Cumulative Impacts of Shoreline Construction Activity on Tidal Wetlands
                              in Virginia


                       90-5   Tidal Wetland Values


                       90-7   Compensatory Mitigation Within the Tidal Wetlands of Virginia


                       90-A   Monitoring of Compliance With Permits Granted by Local Wetlands Boards


                       91-4   Primary Producers and Decomposers of Intertidal Flats


                       91-A   Nontidal Wetland Functions and Values






                                                 Ajaimals of the Intertidal
                                Pro'gram                Sand and Mud Flats
                                                                       (a glance)


                                                                       Kirk J. Havens



                                                    n 1982, recognizing the value of intertidal sand and mud flats,
               Technical                            the Virginia General Assembly amended the Wetlands Act of
                                                 1 1972 to include these nonvegetated wetlands and incorporated
                                                 them into the Commonwealth's Declared Policy "to preserve the wet-
               Report                            lands and to prevent their despoliation and destruction and to accom-
                                                 modate necessary economic development in a manner consistent
                                                 with wetlands preservation." The Commonwealth's Wetlands
                                                 Guidelines classify intertidal sand and mud flats as Group Two wet-
               ....................
                                                 lands types that warrant a high order of protection.
              ... . ........ ... wi ......
                         ............
                                                     While a casual observer might dismiss intertidal sand and mud
                                                 flat areas as unimportant and lifeless, a close examination will
                     I:A 0.ti.
                     , C  A ..
                                                 reveal a myriad of creatures and activities on and just below the sedi-
                        066
                                                 ment surface. As many as 300 different species of invertebrates can
                                                 be found burrowing or scurrying about the mud and sand grains.
                               ...   .........
                                     11 . ....... .


                                                 In an area roughly the size of an average desk
                                                 top, there can be as many as 8,300 animals.


                                                 These animals range from microscopic organisms to worms almost
               Commonwealth's                    four feet long. Some tunnel through the sediments ingesting mud
               Declared Policy.                  and stripping the grains of attached organic matter, while others
                                                 build burrows from which they venture to capture prey or filter out
               "to preserve the                  microscopic plants called plankton.'Still others wander over the sur-
                                                 face feeding on algae or burrow deep within the substrate searching
               wetlands and to                   for prey.
               prevent their                         As they retreat into their burrows, the animals themselves may
               despoliation and                  remain hidden, however signs of their presence are evident
               destruction. . .                  everywhere to one who knows what to look for. Burrow holes and
                                                 mounds of fecal pellets are easily observed as the tide recedes and
                                                 faint tracks across the surface can be seen by those unafraid to get
                                                 their hands and knees muddy.
                                                     The Lugworm, Arenicola cristata, lives deep below the surface
                                                 and feeds by ingesting muds and digesting any organic matter found
               Partial funding provided by the   among the grains. The lugworm tills marine soils much like an
               Office of Coastal Resources       earthworm tills garden soils. A telltale sign of the lugworm. is A hole
               Management, NOAA                  surrounded by a soft coil of sand and, a short distance off, a funnel-
                                                 shaped depression.

                                                                                                   (continued)
               PAbled on recycled paper







          2


               The Parchment Worm, Chaetopterus                        summer breeding season, the milky ribbon worm
          varippedatus, grows to about 10 inches and lives             turns a dark-reddish color.
          in a U-shaped tube, usually with a couple of                     The Clamworm, Alereis succinea, is one of
          small, crabs as permanent tube guests. The                   the most abundant worms in the Chesapeake
          parchment worm feeds by pumping water                        Bay. It grows to about six inches, but is general.-
          through it's tube and trapping plankton and                  ly much smaller. The anterior of the clamworm
          other suspended organic matter on a net of                   is brown and a slightly different shape from the
          mucus. It is strangely bioluminescent which is               reddish posterior. There is also a blood streak
          somewhat surprising for an animal that is blind              down the middle of the back. The clamworm. is
          and lives buried in the bottom. Yet, when the                an aggressive predatorthat will also feed on
          tube opening is disturbed, a blue luminous clould            dead fish and algae.
          of mucus is released and the worm retreats to                    These are just a sample of some of the
          the opposite end of its tube. This is possibly a             worms found in the sand and mud flats. Ther      e
          mechanism to avoid being eaten by startling a                are many, many more with diverse feeding be-
          potential predator.                                          haviors such as the Common Bamboo Worm,
               The Milky Ribbon Worm, Cerebratulas lac-                Trumpet Worm, Freckled Paddle Worm, Barred-
          teus, is a white to yellow-pink worm that reaches            gilled Mud Worm, Red-gilled Mud Worm, Opal
          lengths of about three to four feet, though some             Worm, Bloodworm, Capitellid Thread Worm,
          specimens have been reported to reach 20 feet.               Fringed-gilled Mud Worm, Glassy Tube Worm,
          The milky ribbon worm roams the flats in search              Red-lined Worm, Chevron Worm, Plumed Worm,
          of prey, generally clams and polychaetes. Upon               Ornate Worm and all are an important source of
          locating a clam, the ribbon worm will attack the             food for other marine organisms, especially bot-
          clam's foot to prevent the bivalve from retreating           tom feeding fishes.
          into it's burrow. It burrows by generating waves                 The Eastern Mud Snail, Ilyanassa obsoleta,
          along its body and swims by flattening its body              is a common forager over mud flats and can
          a.nd writhing like an eel. During the spring and             sometimes be found in aggregations of



                                                                                                                 T11






                                                                           Y
                    -2-@@,(@t;:
                                  IV







                                                                                                                    FAstem Mud Smill




                                                                                  R .9i        T
                                                                                   Mud                    Tube
                                                                                                          Tull
                                                                                                          T
                                                                                                aams
                                                                                   wohm"                  loz.
       commall               clam
                                                                    Wwm      Hord
                                                    worm I                   clam
         2.                                                                                         SAW: Mao0ft 4
                     8
                     lood                                                                             aam
                     Worm

                                                                       Freckled
                              Stout Razor 0                              We W
                                                                                                                           Soft-shelled
                                                                                                                           Clam

                                                                  Opal Worm



                                                                                                           V Ribbon worm

                                        Capileffid Thread Worm


                                                           W,
                                                                             m
                                                                           gworm








                                                                                                                                3



                thousands of individuals. These snails feed                   that the entire water volume of the Chesapeake
                primarily on algae on the sediment surface but                Bay was filtered through them every three to six
                will also feed on dead crabs, clams, or fish. As              days. Today, due to the significant reduction in
                the snail travels across the mud surface, it                  bivalve populations (especially oysters), the
                leaves a mucus trail that other mud snails recog-             water volume turnover estimate is every three
                nize and follow. However, if an individual is in-             hundred and twenty five days.
                jured, a substance is released that causes other                   Amphipods are very small (5-8 mm)
                snails to quickly (for a snail) evacuate the area.            shrimplike crustaceans found throughout the
                An interesting aside is that the Eastern Mud                  bay. There are as many as 5,500 species of am-
                Snail is the intermediate host of the parasite                phipods, however the two most common in the
                Austrobilharzia variglandis which, in the adult               Chesapeake Bay's intertidal sand and mud flats
                stage, is a blood fluke of shorebirds. The                    are the Saltmarsh Flea, Orchestia grillus, and
                parasite's larvae are released into the water                 the Spine-backed Scud, Gammarus mucronatus.
                from the snails where they penetrate the skin of              Amphipods graze algae from the bottom sedi-
                birds, enter the blood, and mature. The larvae                ments and are a favorite food of many fish.
                will also penetrate the skin of swimming                           The Fiddler Crab, Uca sp., is easily recog-
                humans but, since they cannot enter the blood,                nized by the one large claw of the male. Fiddlers
                will remain only briefly in the skin and result in            dig burrows along the upper. reaches of the inter-
                an irritation we know fondly as "swimmers itch".              tidal flats and emerge at low tide to feed on
                      A number of clams inhabit the flats, from               detritus and microalgae. As the tide rises, the
                the tiny 1/8 inch Gem Clam, Gemma gemma, to                   fiddler retreats'to its burrow and plugs it, seal-
                the 10 inch Common Jackknife Clam, Ensis                      ing itself inside. Interestly, while the fiddler
                directus. These bivalves can be found literally               emerges from its burrow at low tide, it is not the
                packed side by side under the sediment surface.               absence of water that triggers its emergence
                They feed by extending a pair of siphons above                from the burrow. Researchers have shown that
                the bottom surface muds. One siphon draws in                  the fiddler's biorhythm is tied to the lunar cycle
                water from which plankton and detrital food is                and not the presence or absence of water over its
                obtained along with dissolved oxygen. The other               burrow. If fiddlers are taken inland far from
                siphon expels waste. These bivalves serve to fil-             water, they still become active when low tide nor-
                ter the water as they constantly pump water in                mally would have occurred.
                and out. It has been estimated that prior to the                   The Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus, is a fre-
                1870's there were so many bivalves in the bay                 quent visitor to the intertidal flats. As the tide











                                                                                      osprey



                                                                                               TOP CARNIVORES






                                                                                                              viornan


                                                                                       PRIMARY
                                                                                       CONSUMERS

                           FIR DUCERS


                                                                              ba@teiniaf -
                                                                                     41e
                                                                            N. and                                           MLW
                                                                              protoz=
                                                                                       --zoop1ankton_--__.
                                                                                                     SEC NDARY
                                                                                                     WNSUMEAS
                                                                          DECOMPOSERS A
                                                                          DETRITUS FEEDERS
                                                                                                                     TERTIARY
                                                                                                                     CONSUMERS
                                                 it




                                      SAND & MUDFLAT INFAUNA








            4



            rises, the blue crab will venture into the shal-                       from the intertidal flats and will also feed on in-
            lows to scavenge for food. Juvenile blue crabs                         sects, small fish, and clamworms.
            will move into the shallow water of the sand and                             Upon close examination of the sand and
            mud flats to escape predation. Blue crabs, as                          mud surface another forager of the intertidal
            with all crustaceans, must shed their shell in                         flats can be recognized. The Raccoon, Procyon'
            order to grow. Immediately after shedding and                          lotor, is a frequent visitor who leaves distinctive
            before the blue crab's new shell has hardened,                         footprints. The raccoon generally forages at
            the animal is very vulnerable to predation. One                        night in search of anything it can find that is
            avenue of protection that the blue crab utilizes is                    even slightly edible. In its evening raids to the
            to move into shallow water to shed in an attempt                       flats, the raccoon may come across another
            to escape large predatory fish. What looks like                        predator cruising the shallows f6r fish, the
            numerous small dead blue crabs littering the                           Northern Water Snake, Nerodia sipedon.
            waters edge, are actually the discarded exos-                                All the animals in the intertidal flats form
            keletons of crabs that have recently shed their                        important strands in the food web. The smaller
            shells.                                                                invertebrates feed on the primary producers,
                  Some of the fish that forage in the inter-                       detritus, bacteria and microalgae, and in turn
            tidal area when the tide is high are juvenile                          are fed upon by the larger animals. In this way
            Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, juvenile Spot,                         the energy produced by the primary producers is
            Leiostomus xanthurus, juvenile White Perch,                            transported out of the sand and mud flats to the
            Morone arnericana, juvenile Menhaden, Brevoor-                         upland via mammals, birds, snakes, etc., or out
            tia tyrannus, Anchovies, Anchoa mitchilli, Silver-                     to the deeper waters via crustaceans and fish.
            sides, Menidia sp., Killifishes, Fundulus sp.,                               It is well worth the effort to scoop up and
            American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, and many                              sift through a handful of mud or sand. The
            others. These fish forage in the shallows feeding                      numerous different types of animals that inhabit
            on worms, amphipods, clams, and snails.                                this seemingly lifeless, -constantly wet, land is
                  While fish are, moving in from the water to                      overwhelming. The adventurous person who
            forage in the intertidal flats, birds are scouting                     straps on a knapsack, grabs a field guide, strug-
            them from the air. The Great Blue Heron,                               gles into hip boots and boldly strides forth into
            Ardea herodias, can be seen standing in the shal-                      the mud flat will be amply rewarded with new
            lows patiently waiting to capture a meal. 'The                         and interesting discoveries (one of which is to
            great blue heronwill feed on just about anything                       have a friend along to give you a hand out of the
            it can swallow includingfish, insects, frogs,                          mud.)
            crabs, snakes, turtles, mice and rats. The North-
                                                                 -like                              Suggested Reading
            ern Shoveler, Anas clypeata, uses its spoon
            bill to sift through the mud for worms and other
            small aquatic animals. The Oyster Catcher,                             Lippson, Robert. 1984. Life in the Chesapeake Bay. The
            Hoematopuspalliatuspalliatus, pries open                                     John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and Lon-
                                                                                         don.
            oyster shells with its beak but will also eat                          Niering, William A. 1988. The Audubon Society Nature
            shrimp, mussels, crabs and barnacles. The Clap-                              Guide - Wetlands. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York,
            per Rail, Rallus longirostris, moves in and out of                           New-York.
            the marsh vegetation to snatch fiddler crabs                           Teal, John and Mildred. 1969. Life and Death of the Salt
                                                                                         Marsh. Ballantine Books, Inc., New York, New.York.


                                                                                                                           NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
                                                                                                                               U.S. POSTAGE PAID
                                                                                                                              GLOU. PT., VA 23G62
                                  Technical                                                                                       PERMIT #6
                        Progrom
                                  Report


              college of William and Mary
              Virginia Institute of Marine Science
              School of Marine Science
              Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062







                                                                CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF
                                      Progra                SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION
                                                                          ACTIVITY ON TIDAL
                                                                   WETLANDS IN VIRGINIA


                                            .... .....
                                                                                                      by
                                                            Walter L Priest, 111, Kirk J. Havens, Thomas A. Barnard, Jr., Julie
                Technical                                                    G. Bradshaw and Maryann Wohlgemuth
                Report                                                   'lands have been protected in Virginia since the pas-
                                                                           g 0
                                                           Wsa e                @the Wetlands Act in 1972 which requires a per-
                                                                       mit   f
                                                                              0 the use or development of tidal wetlands.
                                               .............. These were deflned as that land contiguous to mean low water
                                                                                                                      n'e
                                                           extending up to an elevation ofone and-o -half times the
                             4WOMM.           WON
                                                           local mean tide range and upon which is growing any of a
                            ..............................
                                                           numberofwetland plant species listed in the Act. TheW@t-
                                                           lands Act was amended in 1982 to include all non-vegetated
              . . ....... . ..
                                                           areas between mean low water and mean high water.

                                              . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                               . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                 This legislation applies to approximately 5,242 miles of shoreline in
                                                           Tidewater Virginia and approximately 213,686 acres of vegetated tidal wet-
                                                           lands.
                                                                 Management of these wetland resources has always been hampered
                Commonwealth's                             by the lack of knowledge regarding the rates of wetlands loss from per-
                Declared Policy.                           mitted activities. These statistics have usually been the most intractable
                                                           data to acquire because of the numerous agencies involved in the permit-
                                                           ting process, the frequent modifications of permit applications and the dif-
                "to preserve the                           ficulties involved with ensuring the inclusion of all projects proposed. The
                wetlands and to                            development of a database documenting the permitted wetland resource
                prevent their                              losses in Virginia will provide a number of new perspectives on the
                despoliation and                           management process. First, it can help determine the effectiveness of
                destruction. .                             management efforts by documenting the permitted losses of wetlands.
                                                           Secondly, it will allow an assessment of the cumulative i m-pact of incremen-
                                                           tal wetland losses on the resource as a whole. Thirdly, the data are a criti-
                                                           cal baseline element necessary to assess the Commonwealth's relationship
                This report was funded, In part, by        to the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands, a current management priority.
                the Virginia Council on the                Lastly, interpretation of these data may illuminate trends in construction
                Environment's Coastal Resources            activity or impacts requiring special management attention.
                Management Program through                       This report summarizes a pilot program utilizing information from
                grant # NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the              the database on the type and extent of shoreline modifications authorized
                National Oceanic andAbvs-                  by 1988 wetland permit actions. It was undertaken to test the effective-
                pherld Administration under the
                Coastal Zone Management Act of             ness and further develop the permit database developed by the Wetlands
                1972 as amended.                           Advisory Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). The
                                                           software program, "Info Text!', was selected and modified by VIMï¿½ Com-
                                                           puter Center personnel to provide an integrated database which could ac-
                Printed on recycled paper                  commodate the different aspects of the tidal wetlands management
                4ew@pr%ï¿½M                                  program in Virginia.








             2


               A record is created for each permit application       not lost to the system, such as the conversion of in-
          reviewed. This record contains a number of data            tertidal mudflat to subtidal bottom by'dredging c
          fields which can be divided into four major groups:        conversion,of a sand beach to intertidal ripTap. Im-
                                                                     pacts to vegetated wetlandsusually result in the loss
          &   Applicant - name, application number, agent,
                                                                     of the vegetation. The impacts estimated in the
              purpose and cost                                       database are based on those activities actually per-
          *   Location - locality (county, city or town), water-                          'i
                                                                     mitted by the local wetlands boards and the'Virginia
              way and watershed                                      Marine Reso . rces Commission.
          0   Project description - dimensions of bulkhead,                      u
                                                                          The database has several limitations which
              riprap, fill, etc.                                     should be taken into. account when analyzing or in-
          *   Impacts - type and extent of wetlands and sub-
                                                                     terpreting the data. These:permitted losses must be
              tidal bottom impacted.
                                                                     viewed in'the context of natural changes from'.
               The database is designed to be able to sort the       erosion and accretion, as well as unpermitted ac-
          data according to almost any combination of these          tivities which could involve larger or smaller areas
          fields. They are also organized according to a stand-      than the losses reported here but are currently un-
          ard set of watersheds to simplify geographical inter-      quantified. In most instances, permitted projects
          pretation (Figure 1.).                                     are eventually constructed, however there may be
               The impacts reported for,the 1988 dat .a include      occasions where the projects are never constructed
          both habitat lost to filling and habitat impacicted but    and the impacts never accrue to the environment.






                                                                                     Figure 1. Coded watersheds.












                                                      FR



                                                                                 NNB - NORTHERN NECK BAYSHORE
                                                                                 MPB - MIDDLE PENINSULA BAYSHORE
                                                      IR                         PB - PENINSULA BAYSHORE
                                                                                 8B -SOUTHERN BAYSIDE
                                                                                 AC -ATLANTIC COAST
                                                                                 BBN - BACKBAY/N. LANDING RIVER
                                                                                 ESB - EASTERN SHORE BAYSIDE
                                                                                 tSS -- EASTERN SHORE.SEASIDE
                                                                                 PP - POTOMAC RIVER
                                                                                 RR - RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER
                                                       PB                        YR - YORK RIVER
                                                                                 JR - JAMES RIVER



                                                                    AC




                                                            IEN


0






                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  3


                      Additionally, the 1988 database does not exclude                                                               vegetated impacts are reviewed by watershed in				 
                      projects approved by a locality or the state that may                                                          Table 3.
                      have been subsequently denied by the Corps of En-                                                                       In 1988 a total of 19.11 miles (100,879 linear
                      gineers. It also does not account for any compensa-                                                            feet) of shoreline alterations were authorized (Figure
                      tion which may have been required.                                                                             3.). Bulkheading comprised 8.33 miles (43,958
                                                                                                                                     linear feet) and riprap 10.78 miles (56,921 linear
                      Results                                                                                                        feet). Currently, the database does not allow distinc-
                         The tidal wetlands permitted to be impacted in                                                              tion between newly and previously hardened
                      1988 totalled 21.0 acres (914,704 square feet). The                                                            shorelines. Consequently, these figures include new
                      vegetated area, 4.44 acres (193,574 square feet), and                                                          structures as well as the repair and replacement of
                      the non-vegetated area, 16.56 acres (721,130 square                                                            existing structures. These data are depicted on a
                      feet), impacted are summarized by watershed in Fig-                                                            watershed basis in Figure 3 and on a county-by coun-
                      ure 2. The data are presented on a county-by-county                                                            ty basis in Table 4.
                      basis by wetland type in Table 1. The permit ac-
                      tivities of each board as a per cent of the state totals
                      are summarized in Table 2. the vegetated and non-


                                                                                                                                     CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
                                                                                                                                       WATERSHED SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                                                1988

                                                                                                              20000-                                                                                             LEGEND
																																				
                                                                                                              18000-                                                                                                    Bulkhead

                                                                                                              16000-                                                                                                    Riprop


                                                                                                              14000-

                        Figure 2. Construction activity
                                           by watershed.                                                      12000-
                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                              AC-Ad    Const
                                                                                                              10000-                                                                                          BBN-Back Daypff. Ldg.P.
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ESB-Eastern Shore-Bayside
                                                                                                                                                                                                              ESS-Eastern Shore-Seaside
                                                                                                                8000-                                                                                         NNB-Northern Nock Bayshore
                                                                                                                                                                                                              MPB-Middle Peninceula Bayshore
                                                                                                                6000-                                                                                         PB-Peninceula Bayshore
                                                                                                                                                                                                              SB-Southern Bayshore
                                                                                                                4000-                                                                                         JR-J     River
                                                                                                                                                                                                              YR-York River
                                                                                                                                                                                                              PR-Potomac River
                                                                                                                 2000-         
                                                                                                                           AC   BBN ESB ESS NNB MPB PB SS JR  YR RR PR
                                                                                                                                                      WATERSHED
                                                                                                                                                                                     Total Bikhd=43Q58-Total Rlprap=56921





                                                                                                                                         TIDAL WETLANDS IMPACTS
                                                                                                                                             WATERSHED SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                                                 1988

                                                                                                              200000-                                                                                         LEGEND

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Vegetated
																	        180000-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Non-vegetated
																		         
																		  160000-
																	        													

                        Figure 3. Tidal wetlands impacts
                                            by watershed.									  140000-


                                                                                                                                                                                                         AC-Atlantic Coast
                                                                                                              120000-                                                                                    BBN-Back Bayoff Ldg. Ft
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ESB-Eastern Shore-Bayside
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ESS-Eastern Shore-Seaside
                                                                                                                                                                                                         NNB-Northern Nock Bayshore
                                                                                                              100000-                                                                                    MPB-Middle Peninceula Bayshore
																																	   PB-Peninceula Bayshore
																																	   SB-Southern Bayshore
																																	   JR-J     River																		   80000-
																																         YR-York RIver
																																	   RR-Rappahonock River
																																	   PR-Potomac River
																		   60000-



																		   40000-



																		   20000-



																		       0-











                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                          AC BBN ESB ESS NNB MPS PB  SB  JR  YR  RR  PR
                                                                                                                                                  WATERSHED
                                                                                                                                                                    Total vegetated=193574-Total non-vegetated=721130
 






             4




                 Table 1. Tidal wetlands. impacts permitted in 1988 by county and wetlands ty@e.



                   COUNTY TPI           TP2        TP3      TP4           TP5   TP8     Tpl 1 TPI 2       TOTVEG        TP13.      TP114 TPIS        TP1 6 TOTNV


                   ACM       1000       675           0     1200          0     480          0   61678    6SO33                    4740    4066      3061     13307
                   ALEX            0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0     3000    2000      - 0      5000
                   CAROL           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0                 10         0,  :, 70
                                                                                                                                     60
                   C.CTY       -   0         0        0         0         0.       0    1100           o   Ind          1900           0          0       0   1900
                   CHES        426           0        0     5300          0    1350          0      5085  12161        41900       12000  11620      2344     67864
                   CHEST           0         0        @o        0         0        0         0         0        0            0     1.000          0       0   1000
                   ESSEX           0    1375.         0         0         0        0   10000        4356  15731              0     20365   2540           0   22905
                   FAIRF           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0         0       10         0       10
                   GLOU        412      179           0         0         0        0         o         0    Sol              0     3393 .  1W        1564     650
                   HAMO        530        75     2300       1225          0    2550          0      3000   96M         30000           0          0  1000     31000
                   HOPEW           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0      21780           0  14000           0   35780
                   ISLW            0         0        .0        0    1000          0         0         0   1000              0         0    800           o   :,800
                   JAMES           0         0        0         6:        0        0         0      120     120              0         0   1500      3410     4010
                   K&O             0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0         0    360           0   @'360
                   K.GEO           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0     240            0       0     240
                   K.WIL           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0         0          0   672       672
                   LAN       1879       129       8056        10                                                z
                                                                          0        0         0      445   10519              0     7648   32619          63   40330
                   MATH        157      1520          0     120           0        0         0         0   1797              0     96648   8184      2500     107332
                   MSEX        6139     173           0     212           100      0         0      96     1220         3819       20327   4077       115     21338
                   N.KNT           0         0        .0        0         0        0         0      50         so            Q     ',430    400.          0     830
                   N.NEW           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0       1250         10           0   300     "-lS60
                   NOR       7087            0        0     1423          0    1025        75       630   10240              0     110411  5650      9272     25333
                   NH        '13265     765           0         0         0        0         0         0  14030         2630       2280     @50           0   5160
                   NUB       6860       415           go.   256           60       0         0      1836   9507              0     1250   29306           0   30556
                   POO         675           0        0     576           0        0         0      1000   2250              0         0   13263     2960     6223
                   PORT      - 200           0        0,    1900          0        0         0      1816   3916              0     -.1000         0  1200     2200
                   PR.WL           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            01    - 0    15252           0   15252
                   RCITY'          0    885           0         0         0        0         0         0    865              0       15     440           0     455
                   RCOUN           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        6            0         0    54Q           0     540
                   STAFF           0         0        10        0         0        0       50          0      60             0         0   5634@          0   5634
                   SUFF            0         0        0         0         0        0         0      2228   2228              0     100            0       0     100
                   SURRY           0         0        0         0         0        0         0         0        0            0         0          0       0        0
                   VB        5840       5945          0     5020          30     10          0      1800  18645              0     18395  25361   154885      198641
                   WPT         300           0        0         0         0        0         0         0    300              0         0                  0        0
                   WESM        244        is          0         0         0    1300          0      1732   3291              0     3010.  29730           0   @2740
                   WBURG           0         0        0         0         0        0         0      550     550              0         0          0   400       400
                   YORK        460        10          0     100      8100          0         0         0   van            150      160    23700,     3175     27185
                   TOTAL                                                                                 193574                                               721130


                 TP1 - SALTMARSH CORDGRASS.COMMUNITY                      39,974 sq. ft.
                 TP2 - SALTMEADOW HAY COMMUNITY - 12,161 sq. ft.
                 TP3 - BLACK NEEDLERUSH COMMUNITY - 10,446 sq. ft.
                 TP4 . SALTBUSH COMMUNITY - 17,341 sq. ft.
                 TP5 - BIG CORDGRASS COMMUNITY - 9,290 sq. ft.
                 TP8 - REED GRASS COMMUNITY . 6,715 sq. ft.
                 TP1 I - FRESHWATER MIXED VEGETATION COMMUNITY - 11,225 sq. ft.
                 TP1 2 - BRACKISH WATER MIXED VEGETATION COMMUNITY - 86,422 sq. ft.
                 TP13 - INTERTIDAL BEACH COMMUNITY - 104,869 sq. ft.
                 TP1 4 - SAND FLAT COMMUNITY . 206,482 sq. ft.
                 TP1 5 - SANDIMUD MIXED FLAT COMMUNITY - 222,M sq. ft.
                 TP1 6 - MUD FLAT COMMUNITY - 186,921 sq. ft.








                                                                                                                                                                                         5




                          Table 2. Summary of locality permit activity in 1988 and tidal wetlands impacted.





                          COUNTY                        TOTAL WETLANDS                 APPLICATIONS                TOT NVEG                    TOTVEG                 TOT WETL
                                                         IMPACTED(SCk.FT.)              REVIEWED(%)                 IMPACT%                   IMPACT%                  IMPACTO/o

                          Aocomack                                     78340                    6.20%                    1.85%                    33.59%                   8.56%
                          Alexandria                                   5000                     .330/*                   .70%                     0.00%                    .55%
                          Caroline Co.                                   70                     .33%                     .01%                     0.00%                    .000/0
                          Charles City                                 3000                     .33%                     .26%                     .57%                     .33%
                          Chesapeake                                   80025                    2.12%                    9.41%                    6.28%                    8.75%
                          Chested ield                                 1000                     .16%                     .114%                    0.000/0                  .11%
                          Essex                                        38636                    2.45%                    3.18%                    8.13%                    4.220/a
                          Fairfax                                        10                     .65%                     0.000/0                  0.00%                    0.00%
                          Gloucester                                   7094                     3.59%                    .90%                     .3(r/o                   .78%
                          Hampton                                      40680                    1.96%                    4.30%                    5.00%                    4.45%
                          Hopewell                                     35780                    .33%                     4.46%                    0.00%                    3.91%
                          Isle of Wight                                1800                     .33%                     .11%                     .52%                     . 2 (r/6
                          James City                                   5030                     1.31%                    .68%                     .06%                     .55%
                          King & Queen                                   360                    .16%                     .05%                     0.00%                    .04%
                          King George                                    240                    .33%                     .03%                     0.00%                    .03%
                          King William                                   672                    .33%                     .09%                     0.00%                    .07%
                          Lancaster                                    50849                    9.620/6                  5.59%                    5.43%                    5.56%
                          Mathews                                      109129                   5.71%                    14.88%                   .93%                     11.93%
                          Middlesex                                    29558                    8.81%                    3.93%                    .631/9                   3.23%
                          Now Kent                                       880                    .49%                     . 1 r/0                  .03%                     .01%
                          Newport News                                 1560                     .98%                     .22%                     0.000/0                  .17%
                          Norfolk                                      35573                    7.67%                    3.51%                    5.29%                    3.89%
                          Northampton                                  19190                    1.79%                    .72%                     7.25%                    2.10%
                          Northumberland                               40063                    12.56%                   4.24%                    4.91%                    4.38%
                          Poquoson                                     8473                     2.28%                    .86%                     1.16%                    .93%
                          Portsmouth                                   6116                     1.30%                    .30%                     2.02%                    .67%
                          Prince William                               15252                    .16%                     2.12%                    0.00%                    1.67%
                          Richmond City                                1340                     .33%                     .06%                     .46%                     .15%
                          Richmond County                                540                    .16%                     .07%                     0.00%                    .060/0
                          Stafford                                     5694                     2.45%                    .78%                     .03%                     .62%
                          Suffolk                                      2328                     .49%                     .01%                     1.15%                    .25%
                          Surry                                              0                  .16%                     0.00%                    0.00%                    0.00%
                          Virginia Beach                               217286                   15.500/0                 27.55%                   9.63%                    23.75%
                          West Point                                     300                    .16%                     0.00%                    .15%                     .03%
                          Westmoreland                                 36031                    5.06%                    4.54%                    1.70%                    3.940/6
                          Williamsburg                                   950                    .49%                     .06%                     .28%                     .100/0
                          York                                         35855                    2,94%                    3,770/6                  4,48%                    3,92%


                          TOTAL                                        914704               100.02%                      99.50%                   99.98%                   99.91%







                 6




                    Table 3. Tidal wetlands impacts permitted in 1988 by watershed.


                                                                                 Vegetated Wetlands

                                   Ws            TPI.        TP2       TP3       TP4       TP5       TP8       TP1 1 TPI 2         TOTAL               %


                                   AC             0            0         0                   0                 0   0        0            0           6.00%
                                   BBN            0          625         0       50          0                 0   0     -850        1525              .79%
                                   ESB           735         675         0          0        0                 0   0     57428     58838           30.40%
                                   ESS        13530          765         0       1200        0       360           0     425-6     201106          10.39%
                                   JR         8227             0@        0       8560     1030      2375       1175      10479     31846           16.45%
                                   MPB           389       1717          0       250         0                 0   0        0        2356            1.221/6
                                   NNB        4920           246         0       150         0                 0   0     586         5902            3.051/6
                                   PB         1585           75      2360        -1900       0      2550           0     4000      12410             6.41%
                                   PR         1324           205       10,       .116        60     1300         50      2982        6047            3.12%
                                   RR         3379         2456      8136        82        100       120       10000     4897      29160           15.07%
                                   SB         5326         5320          0                   0         10          0     950       16639             8.60*/*
                                   Im            560         77          0          0    8100                  0   0        0        8737            4.51%


                                                                                 Non-vegetated Wetlands

                                              Ws       TP13            TP14              TPIS                  TP16      TOTAL             %
                                              AC'                                0           0                 0             0           o.06%
                                              BBN            0         530              1350                   1500      3380              .47%
                                              ESB      2630            1520             3916                   1120      9186            1.21%
                                              ESS      '1440           5500              400                   1821      9161            1.27%
                                              JR     .66830           20326           3mo                      17826     138812        19.25%
                                              MPB @          0      112715            11690                    4064      128469        17.81%
                                              NNB            0         2120           16592                    0         18712           2.59%
                                              PB      30150            4325           26963                    6880      GN16            9.47%
                                              PR             0                        64610                    0         71510           9.92%
                                              RR       3819           31228           38586                    298       73931         10.25%
                                              SB             0        18165           24151           152485             194801        27.01%
                                              YR             0         3153               770                  927       4850              .67%



                                                                       WATERSHED
                                                                       AC        -    Atlantic Coast - Virginia Beach
                                                                       BBN       -    Back Bay North Landing River
                                                                       ESB       -    Eastem Shore Bayside
                                                                       ESS       =    Eastern Shore Seaside
                                                                       JR        =    James River Basin
                                                                       MPB       =    Middle Peninsula Bayshore
                                                                       NNB       =    Northern Neck Bayshore
                                                                       PB        -    Peninsula Bayshore
                                                                       PR        -    Potomac River Basin
                                                                       RR-       =    Rappahannock River Basin
                                                                       SB        -    Southern Bayshore
                                                                       YR        =    York River Basin








                                                                                                                                                            7




                       Table 4. Shoreline alterations perynitted during 1988 in tidal Virginia by county.





                                         COUNTY          BULKHEAD (linear ft.)              RIPRAP (linear ft.)               TOTAL


                                         Accomack                2674                             625                             3299
                                         Alexandria               254                             202                             456
                                         Caroline Co.             200                                 0                               0
                                         Charles City             200                             145                             345
                                         Chesapeake               990                            2245                             3235
                                         Chesterfield                 0                               0                               0
                                         Essex                    846                             910                             1756
                                         Fairfax                  378                             760                             1138
                                         Gloucester              2644                             920                             3564
                                         Hampton                  323                            4125                             4448
                                         Hopewell                 115                            1500                             1615
                                         Isle of Wight                0                               0                               0
                                         James City               943                                 0                           943
                                         King & Queen               80                                0                             so
                                         King George                84                                0                             84
                                         King William             200                                 0                               0
                                         Lancaster                768                            9711                           10479
                                         Mathews                 1032                            3023                             4055
                                         Middlesex               1643                            4213                             5856
                                         New Kent                 311                                 0                               0
                                         Newport News             300                             438                             738
                                         Norfolk                 4204                            3217                             7421
                                         Northam pton             636                             765                             1401
                                         Northumberland          3850                            9639                           13489
                                         Poquoson                 SW                             1328                             1887
                                         Portsmouth               836                             314                             1150
                                         Prince William          1060                                 0                           1060
                                         Richmond City            145                                 0                           145
                                         Richmond County              0                           120                             .120
                                         Stafford                1463                             323                             1786
                                         Suffolk                     90                           194                             284
                                         Surry                        0                               0                               0
                                         Virginia Beach          12987                           7268                            20255
                                         West Point               330                                 0                               0
                                         Westmoreland            2079                            3626                             5705
                                         Williamsburg             375                                 0                           375
                                         York                    I=                              1=


                                         TOTAL                   43958                           56921                         100879








             .8


          Discussion                                                   and RR, permitted more riprap, 20,122 LF, than
               The majority of the tidal wetlands authorized           bulkheading, 11,420 LF. The opposite was true in
          to be impacted in 1988 were non'-vegetated. - How-           the more urban areas, JR and SB, where more
          ever, of the vegetated impacts authorized, the               bulkheading, 18,977 LF, than riprap,, 13,774 LF, was
          majority was in the Group I marshes, Saltmarsh               permitted. It is unknown whether this is a.true
          Cordgrass Community (Type I), Freshwater Mixed               preference or rather something dictatedby local cir-
          Vegetation Community     .(Type XI) and Brackis Ih           cumstance's such as the nature of adjacent shoreline
          Water Mixed Vegetation Community (Type XII).                 structures, economics or engineering considerations.
          These types are normally to be afforded the highest
          order of protection but appear. to be accruing most of       Summary
                                                 w de occurence             The Pilot Program reported    here has
          the impacts, perhaps because of their 4
          as fringe marshes@.                                          demonstrated that the database can be an effective
               Vegetated tidal wetlands permitted to be im-,           tool in compiling data on the cumulative impact of
          pacted were greatest on the Eastern Shore where los-         permitted we  .tlands losses. Future efforts: * I be
                                                                                                                   Vnl
          ses on the Bayside were higher than the Seaside.             directed at modification -to i    ove the versatility
                                                                                                p    mpr
          This was primarily due to a single project impacting         of the database and its value to the wetlands
          over one acre.
                                                                       management process.- Those already. proposed in-
               The data appear to indicate a certain affinity          clude expanding the:types of construction activities
          for particular types of structures in the four water-        covered, creating a fill category that will indic' ate the
          sheds showing the greatest amount of shoreline al-           actual area of habitat,permitted to be lost and
          terations permitted, Potomac River (PR),                     providing a summary ofrequired compensation.
          Rappahannock (RR), James Rivei(JR) and Southern
          Bayshore (SB). The predominantly rural areas, PR











                                                                                                          NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
                                   Technical                                                                 U.S. POSTAGE PAID
                         P1                                                                                  GLOU. Fr., VA 23062
                             MITI  Repoil                                                                       PERMIT #61
              College of William and. maly@'
              Virginia Institute of Marine Science
              School of Marine Science
              Gloucesiei Point, Virginia 23062,







                                                                       Monitoring of Compliance
                                           Program                       With Permits Granted By
                                                                             Local Wetlands Boards


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



                                                                                               Jullie G. Bradshaw


                    Technical                                       Introduction
                    Report                                                 Activities in Virginia7s tidal wetlands a        .re regulated at the
                                                                    State and local level by the Virginia Wetlands Protection Act of
                                                                    1972. For localities (i.e., counties, towns and cities) which elect to
                    Special Edition                                 regulate their own wetlands, the Act requires adoption of a
                                                                    prescribed ordinance and formation of a volunteer citizen board of
                                                                    5 or 7 members. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission
                                                                    (VMRC), the Commonwealth's marine resource management agen-
                  . . ..................     ....        .....
                                                                    CY, retains an oversight and appellate role over these wetlands
                                                     ............
                                                     ...........
                                                     ............
                                                     . . ... . . . . ....... boards. For localities which choose not to adopt the wetlands or-
                                                     :1: X
                                                                    dinance, VMRC assumes primary regulatory authority over tidal
                                                                    wetlands within that locality. Of 48 localities eligible to regulate
                                                                    tidal wetlands within their borders, 33 have adopted local wetlands
                    ....................... ... ....
                                                                    ordin
                                                                           ances and formed wetlands boards.
                                    .......... .......
                      .. . . ...     .... .......
                                                 .. ................

                                      . ...... ..
                                                                           The wetlands boards and/or VMRC have the ability to grant
                         . ................... ... .
                                                                    or deny permits for the use or development of wetlands within
                                                                    their jurisdictions. Parties wishing to use or develop wetlands
                                                                    must first submit a permit application which includes a statement
                                                                    of purpose and detailed drawings and descriptions of the proposed
                    Commonwealth's                                  activity.. The types of activities for which parties request permits
                                                                    include shoreline stabilization structures such as bulkheads and
                    Declared Policy.                                riprap revetments, and water access structures and activities such
                                                                    as boat ramps, community or commercial piers, and dredging. The
                    "to preserve the                                role of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) in the per-
                    wetlands and to                                 mitting process has been to estimate the impacts of projects on the
                                                                    marine environment and to recommend alternatives to minimize
                    prevent their                                   those impacts where possible. Quite oft            .en these recommendations
                    despoliation and                                involve realignment of shoreline structures to lessen the areal ex-
                    destruction. . .                                tent of wetlands impacted.
                                                                           The wetlands boards (or VMRC for those localities without
                                                                    wetlands boards) hold a public hearing for each permit application.
                                                                    All interested citizens, regulatory and advisory agencies are given
                                                                    the opportunity to comment on proposed activities in writing and
                    Partial funding provided by the                 at the public bearing. Based on a consideration of public and
                    Office of Coastal Resources                     private benefits and detriments expected from the proposed ac-
                    Management, NOAA                                tivities, the wetlands boards decide whether to deny permits or to
                                                                    grant them as proposed or with conditions.
                    `e@proi












  0
                    Printed on recycled paper                                                                                              (continued)









            2



                  Once permits are granted, there is no re-                Methods
            quirement or suggestion in the Wetlands Act or
            in guidelines promulgated by VMRC that the                          Most localities pi rovide the wetlands boards
            permits be monitored for compliance. VIMS has                  with some degree of staffing which ranges from
            not undertaken a formal study of individual                    strictly administrative or clerical assistance to
            projects to determine the extent of noncom-                    varying levels of prof6ssional technical assis-
            pliance with permits. However, we are aware of                 tance. Telephone and personal interviews with
            many projects which were not constructed as p eir-             wetlands board staff were conducted during
            mitted. -The noncompliance in many of these                    November 1989. Ifiterviewees were questioned
            cases involved construction of bulkheads or
                                                                           about five aspects of their compliance monitor-
            riprap rev6tments at alignments up to several                  ing programs:
            feet channelward of the permitted alignments.
            In other cases,'permittees did not dispose of                       a.) whether'shoreline structures.required
            dredged material in the permitted location or                            building permits in addition to the wet-
            manner, or constructed boat ramps in locations                           lands permits required by the.Wetlan     Ids
            other th ain those permitted '                                           Act,
                  The potential significance of noncompliance
            is evident when the magnitudes of permitted                         b.)  whether the Applicant is req
                                                                                                                   Wred to
            projects and impacts. are.examined. For ex-                              provide bencihmarks in the application
            ample, in 1988, approximately 44,000 linear, feet                        (i.e., distances of proposed structures
            of shoreline were permitted to be b   *ulkheaded in                      from more than one fixed reference
            tidewater Virginia. Preliminary analysis indi-                           point)
            cates that the average per  *mitted-bu-1khead'
            encroachment onwetlands' was approx       :imately                  c.)  whether [email protected] by
            2.3 feet per linear foot of bulkhead,yesuliing in                        the wetland's board is staked by the
            a projected total loss of approximately 100,000                          staff or wetlands board prior to con-
            square feet of wetlands due to bulkhead construc-                        struction,
            tion and backfilling. If each of those bulkheads
            was constructed only one foot chann    -elward of its               d.)  whether the 'pe'rmitteeis required to
            permitted alignment, the additional wetlanid loss                        notif
                                                                                         y staff prior to beginning or after
            would be approximately 44 percent greater                                completing the permitted activity,
            While encroachment into wetlands of several
            feet more than permitted may be relatively easy                     e.)  whether staff or wetlands board mem-
            to detect by watchful neighbors or during a                              bers undertake site inspections, after
            casual follow-up inspection, a one foot, difference                      the permit is granted.
            in permitted versus actual alignment would be
            more difficult to detect without a structured                       Of the 33 existing wetlands boards, staff
            monitoring program, and may seem punitive to                   from 24 wetland's boards were interviewed. Wet-
            correct once a project is completed.' Both in-,                lands boards which h  'eard fewer than four p      er-
            dividually and cumulatively, wetland losses due                mit applications in 088 were excluded from this
            to permit noncompliance'ar'e'potentially-.*sig-                survey. The results reported are based on
            nificant. Because of their great and unique                    responses to the November 1989 survey-and do
            values as an ecological comp   'onent of the marine            not reflect program changes which may have oc-
            environment and as a phy sical buffer t@r erosion,             curred since that time.
            flooding and water quality control, continuing                      Survey responses were weighted by the
            unnecessary losses of wetland resources should                 number of permits granted in 1988 by each wet-
            be avoided.                                                    lands board as reported by the wetlands boards
                 A prudent wetland management program                      in their annual reports to VMRC, and collated
            should therefore include some method of deter-                 by R.C. Neikirk of VMRC.
            mining compliance with permits granted. A sur-                      Responses by rural and urban boards were
            vey was conducted in order to determine how,                   compared. For the purpose of this survey, rural
            and to what exte n*t, the wetlands boards monitor              localities were defined as those with a popula-
            for permit compliance.                                         tion density less than 140 per square mile;
                                                                           urban localities were,defined as those with a
                                                                           population density greater than 140 per square
                                                                           mile, using population data from the 1980 cen-
                                                                           sus by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Univ.









                                                                                                                                     3


                 of Virginia, 1987). By this definition, the least              structures, and 3 (14%) do not require building
                 populous urban counties were James City find                   permits.
                 Stafford; the most populous rural locality was
                 Suffolk.                                                             Benchmarks

                 Results and Discussion                                               Four of 24 (17%) wetlands boards require
                                                                                the use of benchmarks in the project drawings.
                      Wetlands board staff responses to ques-                   Three of these wetlands boards require the ap-
                 tions about aspects of their permit compliance                 plicant to provide this information; one locality's
                 monitoring programs are summarized in Table 1.                 staff generates these benchmarks themselves for
                                                                                inclusion in the permits. Benchmarks are not re-
                                                                                quired by 20 of 24 (83%) wetlands boards.

                 Table 1.   Responses of wetlands board staff to                      Staking
                            questions about aspects of their per-
                            mit compliance monitoring programs                        Eleven of 24 (46%) localities stake the per-
                            (from 24 wetlands boards except                     mitted alignments for bulkheads and riprap
                            where indicated).                                   revetments. Of these eleven, four localities
                                                                                stake all alignments, and the other seven stake
                                                         Number of              5 to 40 percent of the alignments. Those which
                                                      wetlands boards           stake only some of the alignments stated that
                                                                                they stake only projects with complex align-
                 Permit Compliance Program Components:                          ments, those with the potential to impact sig-
                                                                                nificant wetland resources, or those involving
                                                                                contractors with whom they had previously had
                    Building permits (of 22 Boards)                             trouble.
                    -required for all structures           7 (32%)
                    -required for wooden                                              Notification
                    structures only                      12 (54%)
                    -not required                          3 (14%)                    Twelve of 24 (50%) localities require the
                                                                                permittee to notify staff prior to beginning work
                                                                                on a permitted activity, usually at least 24 hours
                    Benchmarks required                    4 (17%)              before beginning work. One of these 12 has re-
                                                                                quired. such notification of only 15% of permit-
                                                                                tees, generally if the application was complex,
                    Staking of permitted alignments                             controversial, or had the potential to impact sig-
                    -all projects staked                   4    (17%)           nificant wetlands resources. Of those localities
                    -5 to 40% of projects staked           7    (29%)           which do not require prior notification, one has
                    -no projects staked                  13     (54%)           required permittees to notify staff after comple-
                                                                                tion of the permitted activity for 25% of permits,
                                                                                usually when the project involved restoration of
                    Notification required'               12 (50%)               wetlands or stabilization of a steep slope.

                 -----------------------------------------------------                Inspections
                    Inspections
                    -all projects inspected                6 (25%)                    Sixteen of 24 (67%) localities conduct in-
                    -60-95% of projects inspected          4 (17%)              spections of permitted activities. Six of 24 (25%)
                    -20-40% of projects inspected          6 (25%)              inspect all projects; 10 of 24 (42%) inspect at
                    -no projects inspected                 8 (33%)              least half of the projects. Inspection programs
                                                                                are of four general types:

                      Building permits                                                a.) designated inspections based on the
                                                                                          progress of the project; requires
                       Of 22 localities which responded to this                           notification of staff by permittee (e.g.,
                 question, 7 (32%) require building permits for all                       prior to backfilling a bulkhead, after
                 structures (including riprap revetments), 12                             completion of the project) .(5 of 16'
                 (54%) require building permits only for wooden







           4


                     localities which conduct inspections util-             who may not be familiar with wetlands, the wet-
                     ize this method)                                       land permit application, the wetland permitting
                                                                            process, or permit conditions.
                 b.) periodic (e.g., monthly) inspections of                      Localities which require scale drawings or
                     all pending projects (2 of 16 utilize this             reference points to be included in the application
                     method)                                                have an objective standard by which compliance
                                                                            may be determined by anyone. with a tape
                 c.) unstructured inspections (i.e., made                   measure and drawings of th      e permitted activity.
                     "whenever they get.around to it") (6 of                The use of benchmarks (i.e., distances of
                     16). Also in this category were inspec-                proposed structures fro mi more than one fixed
                     tions prompted by complaint calls from                 reference point) is a simple method by which in-
                     neighbors of permittees or other mem-                  spectors (even those unfamiliar.with particular
                     bers of the general public. In fact,                   sites, wetlands identification, or th-e wetland per-
                     many localities stated that surveillance               mitting process) may' evaluate permit com-
                     by neighbors was their primary f@rm of                 pliance.
                     permit compliance monitoring.
                                                                                  Program stru6ture
                 d.) chance inspections;'unplanned;                                                    I
                     projects seen only if staff-happens to be                    The localities' responses to questions about
                     in the vicinity (3 of 1-6).                            the five aspects of permit compliance monitoring
                                                                            programs investigated'ranged from all negative
                 Determination of compliance                                responses (i.e., none of the five activities was re-
                                                                            quired or accomplished) to all affirmative respon-
                 Staff members described a variety of                       ses (i.e., the localities used all five components
           methods which they used for determining permit                   in their compliance monitoring programs).
           compliance during inspections. Some determina-                         At a minimum, a program to monitor for
           tions of compliancewere based on staff recollec-                 compliance with wetlands permits should in-
           tion of the permit requirements an     d how the                 elude:
           shoreline looked prior to the permitted activity.-
                                           p
           Others involved comparison of completed ac-                            a.) a follow-up inspection of the permitted
           tivities with photographs taken at prior site                              project, and
           visits. Often these photographs depicted stakes
           or flagging which   -indicated the proposed or.per-                    b.) standards (e.g., benchmarks) by which
           mitted alignment. Othef localities evaluated the                           the 'inspector may judge whether the
           completed activity by comparing it with the                                permit conditions have been satisfied.
           drawings submitted in the application.
                 There are problems inherent in all of these                      The other aspects of permit compliance
           approaches. Shorelines are often drastically al-                 monitoring programs. which were investigated
           tered by permitted activities such as construe-                  (i.e., requirement for building permitsi no     tifica-
           tion of bulkheading and riprap-In many cases,                    tion requirement, and staking of permitted align-
           the adjacent upland may also be alteiedsig-'                     ments) are strategies Which could make such a
           nificantly during the time which elapses be-                     program easier to' accomplish, although they are
           tween permit issuance and the accomplishment                     not absolutely essential for successful monitor-
           of the permitted activities. The new landscape                   ing of permit compliance..
           may not be easily recognizable and comparison                          Based on the criteria of inspections. and
           of the site with recollections or with                           benchmarks, the wetlands boards' programs for
           photographs, subjective approaches at best, may                  monitoring permit compliance were categorized
           not yield the desired results. Drawings included                 by structure. Results are summarized in Figure
           with the permit application are often inadequate                 1.
           to determine the exact positioning or alignment                        Of the 24 wetland boards interviewed, the
           of a proposed structure or activity because they                 majority (13, or 54%) inspected at least some of
           are not drawn to scale or fail to include reference              the permitted projects but did not use
           points such as existing structures and tidal refer-              benchmarks as a standard by which to deter-
           ences (i.e., mean low water and mean high                        mine compliance. Three of the 24 localities re-
           water)., Inspections for some of the localities                  quired benchmarks in the applications and
           which also require building permits for shoreline                conducted inspections of at least some permitted
           structures are conducted by building inspectors                  projects. One locality required benchmarks in








                                                                                                                                    5


                Figure 1.     Permit compliance monitoring program structure (% of boards).


                                   No benchmarks or                                  Benchmarks + inspections (12.5%)
                                   inspections (29.2%)





                        Benchmarks only (4.2%)                       N!
                                                                                         Inspection only (54.2%)





                permit applications but did not conduct inspec-                tion of rural and urban wetlands boards within
                tions of permitted projects. The remaining                     each of the four program structures was similar.
                seven wetland boards (29%) neither required                    However, when the responses were weighted by
                benchmarks nor inspected permitted projects for                the number of permits granted by each board in
                compliance.                                                    1988, the proportion of permits granted by rural
                                                                               and urban boards within each of the four pro-
                      Permits granted in 1988                                  gram structures,was significantly different. Ex-
                                                                               amination of Table 2 reveals where these
                      The wetlands boards surveyed granted 835                 differences occur. The majority (59%) of permits
                permits in 1988. Although 67 percent of the wet-               granted by urban boards in 1988 were granted
                lands boards inspect at least some projects after              by boards which require both inspections and
                they are permitted, when applied to the number                 benchmarks. Only 6 percent of permits granted
                of permits granted by those localities in 1988,                by rural boards fall into this category. The
                only 47 percent of these projects would have                   majority of permits granted by rural boards were
                been inspected.                                                split between boards which have some type of in-
                      Comparisons of other monitoring com-                     spection program but    do not require benchmarks
                ponents are shown in Figure 2. Although 46 per-                (44%) and boards which neither inspect projects
                cent of the boards required staking of permitted               nor have a benchmark requirement (49%).
                alignments, those boards only granted 38 per-                  When staff responses about the proportion of
                cent of the 1988 permits. Conversely, although                 projects inspected for compliance are applied to
                only 17 percent of the wetlands boards require                 the numbers of permits granted in 1988 by each
                benchmarks in permit applications, those boards                locality, it is revealed that 70% of activities per-
                granted 34 percent of the 1988 permits. For the                mitted in urban localities are inspected for com-
                other aspects of monitoring programs (i.e., the                pliance, while only 27% of those in rural areas
                notification and building permit requirements)                 are inspected.
                the proportion of boards using these components                      Some of the differences between the permit
                was similar to the proportion of permits granted               compliance monitoring programs of rural and
                by those boards in 1988.                                       urban localities may be attributable to differen-
                                                                               ces in the amount of staff support available to
                      Comparison of rural and urban boards                     the boards. In general, urban wetlands boards
                                                                               have a greater level of staff support than do
                      Of the 24 wetlands boards surveyed, 13                   rural boards (Hershner et al., 1985). Many of
                were classified as rural and 11 as urban. Boards               the rural staff members interviewed stated that
                from urban localities granted 48 percent of the                monitoring of permit compliance could not be ac-
                1988 permits. The structures of permit com-                    complished at current staffing levels.
                pliance monitoring programs of rural and urban
                localities are compared in Table 2. The propor-







            6


           Figure 2.     Percent of localities requiring permit compliance monitoring program components.







                               go-,

                               80'

                               70

                      4-D      60-1

                               50

                               40

                               30


                               20




                                 0
                                           Staking     Benchmarks Building           Notification
                                                                        perm.

                                                      Program Component

                                            % of boards requiring component



                                            % of. 1988 permits granted by boards requiring component



           Table 2. Comparison of urban and rural wetlands board programs to monitor for permit compliance.

                                                          Some or all projects.                   No projects
                                                                inspected                          inspected
                                                             BencKmarlEs                     --7-Benchmarks
                                                      Required         Not required        Required       Not required

           ----------------- --------------------------------------- -------------------------- 7------- ---------------------
             Number of         rural       13         1       (8%)       7   (54%)         0 (0%)          5 (38%)
             wetlands
             boards            urban       11         2     (18%Y        6   (54%)         1    (g%)       2 (18%)

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

             Number of         rural     433          28      (6%)     193   (44%)         0    (0%)     212 (49%)
             permits
             granted           urban     402         239    (59%)      101   (25%)       13     @(3%)     49 (12%)
             in 1988









                                                                                                                                                           7


                        A model permit compliance                                           project completion, when it may be more difficult
                        monitoring program                                                  to correct.
                                                                                                  5. Building permits. Most localities cur-
                        A model program for permit compliance                               rently require that building permits be obtained
                  monitoring could include:                                                 for shoreline construction projects in addition to
                        1. Benchmarks. Benchmarks or tie-                                   permits granted by the wetlands boards. If an
                  downs are distances from the most channelward                             established building permit inspection program
                  extent and all corners or turns of the proposed                           exists, it could be used in conjunction with a wet-
                  structure or Activity to more than one per-                               lands permit compliance monitoring program,
                  manent fixed reference point (e.g., the corners of                        particularly if the monitoring program includes
                  an existing house). If permanent fixed reference                          other suggested components (i.e., benchmarks,
                  points do not exist in the vicinity of the project,                       staking, and notification).
                  they should be established (e.g., using steel rods)
                  and maintained until the project is complete and                          Conclusion
                  has been in S'pected by all regulatory agencies in-
                  volved. Benchmarks should be included in the                                    Virginia!s Tidal Wetlands Protection Act
                  permit application drawings and can be used by                            and its guidelines allow the use or development
                  regulatory personnel prior to permit approval to                          of wetlands where justified and unavoidable.
                  determine proposed project locations, and after                           Unnecessary loss of Virginia's tidal wetlands is a
                  permit approval to determine compliance. Some                             course which the Commonwealth must avoid if it
                  magnitude of allowable deviation from the per-                            is to retain the essential ecological and physical
                  mitted benchmark distances should be estab-                               services of these unique resources. Potential in-
                  lished by the locality.                                                   creased "natural" loss of wetlands due to rising
                        2. Alignment staking. Ideally, the ap-                              sea level will make preservat        ion of existing wet-
                  plicant would stake a proposed project upon sub-                          lands even more critical in the years to come.
                  mitting the application and using the                                     Until public pressure on coastal resources is al-
                  benchmarks in the application. If permitted                               leviated, the burden is on regulatory agencies,
                  alignment was different from that proposed, the                           such as the wetlands boards, to prevent wetland
                  permitted alignment would be staked by the                                despoliation. An essential aspect of this wetland
                  locality, or staked by the applicant and con-                             stewardship role is the monitoring of permit com-
                  firmed by the locality.                                                   pliance. A program which grants permits
                        3. Notiftcation. Ideally, permittees                                without monitoring them for compliance has the
                  should notify localities oneOr two days prior to                          potential to undermine the regulatory process by
                  beginning a permitted activity. Notification                              allowing unnecessary wetland losses. Such a
                  would allow scheduling of inspections by the                              program may give citizens a false impression of
                  locality.                                                                 the degree to which its wetland resources are
                        4. Inspection. Inspection could be based                            being protected. If Virginia is to be'a leader in
                  on the progress of the project; for example, a                            the preservation and restoration of the
                  locality could require inspection of a bulkhead                           Chesapeake Bay, it must continue to focus atten-
                  prior to installation of sheeting or prior to back-*                      tion on tidal wetlands, the critical interface be-
                  filling. Noncompliance could be easier to correct                         tween the land and the Bay.
                  at this point than after backfilling. If the
                  locality requires the applicant to stake the per-                         References
                  mitted alignment, the notification and inspection
                  procedure could be used to confirm that the                               Hershner, Carl, Thomas A. Barnard, Jr., and N. Bartlett
                  applicant's stakes are at the permitted align-                                  Theberge. 1985. Analysis of Virginia's local wetlands
                                                                                                  boards. Pgs. 537-543 in Magoon, Orville T., Hugh Con-
                  ment. Inspections could also be independent of                                  verse, Dallas Miner, Delores Clark and L. Thomas
                  the progress of individual projects; for example,                               Tobin, eds. Coastal Zone '85. Proceedings of the
                  a locality could visit a particular creek system pe-                            Fourth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Manage-
                  riodically and inspect any projects underway.                                   ment. American Society of Civil Engineers. New
                  Most localities which currently use this ap-                                    York. 2672 pp.
                  proach also survey for unpermitted activities con-                        University of Virginia, Center for Public Service. 1987. Vir-
                  currently with inspection of permitted projects.                                ginia Statistical Abstract. Center for Public Service,
                  Using this method of inspection, however, non-                                  University of Virginia. Charlottesville, VA.
                  compliance may not be discovered until after










































                             Technical                                                             HON PROFIT ORGANIZA71ON
                                                                                                      US. POSTAGE PAID
                             Rep"t                                                                    GLOU. PT., VA 23062
            1i&0%,pr!Cwï¿½0M   SP49CICI                                                                    PERMIT
                             Edftjn

             "A?ge of Wiliam and MdrY
             ftinla institute of Matie, Science
             school Of madne Sde nce
             Glow ester Point, Vlrq@nfb 23062






                                                                                             TIDAL WETLAND
                                                   Program                                                       VALUES



                                                              . . . . . .. . . . . .
                                                                                                          Maryann Woh1gemuth
                                          . ...   .... .
                                        .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                            ............
                                    Kliiifll-@:I.::
                               ...7
                                             . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                     ..........................
                     ................. .........
                     ........................
                     .................. . ....                   .......
                     ................ .................  . . ..                             hroughout the state of Virginia there is a variety of wetland
                                                                                  Ttypes which range from tidal marshes and swamps near the
                                                                                   JL coast, to nontidal wetlands found anywhere from the coastal
                       Technical                                                  plain to the mountains. Wetlands are found in topographic depres-
                                                                                  sions or along rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.
                       Report                                                     Wetlands, in general, are areas that are wet or have wet soils
                                                                                  during some part of the growing season.


                       ........ ...................
                     ......                                                           Tidal wetlands are found along the coastline where they are in-
                     ....... CQ     &*"00W00ï¿½;i
                     .......                                                      fluenced by daily tidal fluctuations and include vegetated marshes
                                                                                  and swamps or nonvegetated mud and sand flats (Figure 1).



                                                      ................ ........
                     ....                       . .. ..
                                                      .. ........                                                     ifure 1. Cross-sectional diagram of a tidal
                                                                                                                        t
                                                                                                                               ,.h (adapted from nner, 1984).


                       Commonwealth's
                       Declared Policy.                                                                                                                         Spring or Storm Tide
                                                                                     UPLAND                         --- 7  --------------- -        Id,                    I ---------
                       "to preserve the
                                                                                                 switchgrass                                                                   Dai Y Low Tide
                       wetlands and to                                                           high-fide bush              salt hay cordgrass                                    --------
                                                                                                                             spikegrass             smooth cordgrass
                       prevent their                                                                                         saltmarsh aster     (tall form)
                       despoliation and                                                                                      glasswort
                                                   sp                                                                        smooth cordgrass
                       destruction...                                                                                        (short form)




                         7his report was funded, in part, by
                         the Virginia Council on the                                                 IRREGULARLY FLOODED MARSH                REGULARLY INTERTIDAL              ESTUARINE
                         Environment's Coastal Resources                                                                                      FLOODED          FLAT             OPEN WATER
                         Management Program through                                                                                           MARSH                             (BAY)
                         grant# NA89AA-D-CZ734 of the
                         National Oceanic and Atmos-
                         pheric Administration.                                        Wetlands were historically considered wastelands that har-
                                                                                  bored bothersome snakes and disease-carrying insects. They were
                                                                                  considered useless for most farming or building because of the un-
                                                                                                                    sallmarsh ladap'edrom'
                                                                                                                                                        71ner "9
                                                                                                                                                                    841






                                                                                                                                                                S
                                                                                                                                                                    ..go
                                                                                                                                                                   p.
                                                                                                                                                      7. T@
                                                                                                                                                                    ly
                                                                                                                                                                 D.
                                                                                     UPLAND
                                                                                                     r
                                                                                                    ith
                                                                                                 "   _ti g'                  s It @ay c, d@ga
                                                                                                 high d bush                   . h
















                                                                                  stable, wet substrate. These lands were often drained or filled for
                                                                                  farming, housing, and urban development. However, this negative
                         Printed on recycled paper                                view of wetlands was not shared by the fishermen, hunters, and
                                                                                  trappers who benefited from the productive and diverse supply of
                                                                                  mammals, fish, and waterfowl found in wetlands.








             2


             Wetland Values                                                  wastewater treatment. (Virginia Natural
                   Tidal wetlands provide many ecological and                Resources Newsletter':, 1989). Wetland vegeta-
             socio-economic benefits including: water quality                tion and the associated root mass act to slow
             improvement, aquatic productivity, fish and                     water flow, which results in settlement and
             wildlife habitat, shoreline erosion control,                    deposition of suspended sediments, and the as-
             stormwater treatment, flood protection, potable                 sociated pollutants, and nutrients (Boto and
             water supplies, economic     'ally valuable resources,          Patrick, 1979). Benefits are realized by in-
             and recreation. The level of these values varies                creased water clarity-and reduced siltation in
             with the type, setting, size, and hydrology of the              downdrift oyster beds, fish spawning and nurs-
             particular wetland. The health of the                           ery areas, seagrass b6ds, and navigation chan-
             Chesapeake Bay and its fisheries are closely                    nels (Anderson et al., 1978).
             linked to the existence of wetlands.                                  For erosion control on tidal banks where
                                                                             water quality improv@ement is a consideration,
             Water Quality 1inprovement                                      the Commonwealth's.manual. Best Manage-
                   Due to their strategic position between                   ment Practices for Agriculture (VSWCB, 1979)
             uplands and the aquatic environment, tidal wet-                 suggests planting vegetation. It is especially im-
             lands can filter and trap sediments and pol-                    portant to maintain fringe'wetlands a4jacent to
             lutants from upland runoff before they reach an                 development sites and agricultural lands to filter
             adjacent waterway. Water pollution problems                     upland sediments, nutrients, and pollutants
             can be reduced when urban and'agricultural                      before they enter the marine environment.
             runoff pass through a wetland bu&r b4ore                        Trees are good stabilizers of river banks and sub-
             reaching the aquatic environment. Ther'Lisearch                 sequently reduce shoreline erosion. Their roots
             of Cerco and Kuo (@979) concluded that a tidal,                 bind the soil, while their trunks and branches
             marsh creek that received effluent from a                       slow the flow of flooding waters and dampen
             poultry processing plant significantly reduced                  wave height (Tiner, 1984; Burke et al., 1,988).
             levels of nutrients and increased levels of dis-                Marshes have a significant effect on water
             solved oxygen.                                                  quality in estuaries with large marsh areas,
                   As wetland plants grow, they utilize and                  small water volume,'and small point sources of
             recycle nutrients, which otherwise mayco       'n-              nutrients, as shown iii-Sweierey's (1980) calcula-
             tribute to decreased water clarity by stimulating               tions for the York arid James. rivers.
             algal blooms. There is a seasonal uptake and
             release of nutrients in wetlands. During the                    Aquatic Productivity
             growing season nitrogen and phosphorous are as-
             similated by plants. After death of, the                              Some wetlands produce more plant
             aboveground portions of plants, nutrients ma        Iy          material per area than the most productive
                                                                             farmlands (Figure 2). Wetlands along the East
             be released by decomposi-
             tion. Mitsch and Gosselink
             (1986) point out that@ the UP-       isco
             take during the growing.                                                            MT
             season may be beneficial to
             water quality because it             200WO
             coincides with the periods                                          TROMAL  FRA E
                                                                                 PAN     WETLAW
             when serious algal blooms                                           FOREST
             occur.
                   It has been shown that         I Wo
             some wetlands are success-
                          ing nutrients,
             heavy metals, and bacteria
             ful at reduc

                                                  low                                                    WARM
             from sewage effluent and                                    DECCUOUS                        TEMPERATE
                                                                          R)REST                         MUED
             other waters (Grant and                                                                     FOREST
                                                                                                                 CULTIVATED
             Patrick, 1970; Sloey et al.                                                                         LAW     GRASSLAW
             1978; Kadlec and Kadlec,                            WREAL
             1979). In Monterey, a town                          FOREST
             in western Virginia, a bul-
             rush wetland was the most                  NET PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY OF SELECTED ECOSYSTEMS [gft2lyearl
             economical alternative for
             accomplishing secondary
                                                      Figure 2. Relative productivity ofwetland ecosystems in relation to others
                                                      (adaptedfi-om TYner, 1984).







                                                                                                                                  3


                 Coast produce 5-10 tons of organic matter per                  marsh areas are a preferred habitat because of
                 acre annually, while agricultural fields produce               reduced competition, slow currents, scarcity of
                 0.3 to 5 tons per acre annually (Teal, 1969). This             predators and an abundant food supply.
                 large amount of productivity provides a food                       In 1967-1968, 95% of Virginia@s annual fish
                 source for fish, birds, invertebrates, and fur-                harvest was shown to be at least partially de-
                 bearers. The plant material can be utilized                    pendent on wetlands (Wass and 'Wright, 1969).
                 directly by marine grazers or used in a decaying               Blue crabs use tidal marsh creeks as shelter
                 form called detritus. Detritus is consumed by                  from predators during molting (Hines et al.,
                 many small invertebrates, juvenile fish, and                   1987). Juvenile blue crabs and 14 species of fish
                 oysters, which in turn are eaten by larger fish,               were more abundant on flooded salt marsh sur-
                 birds, and crabs (Anderson et al., 1978). This                 faces than in non-vegetated subtidal areas (Zim-
                 pattern of feeding is called a food web and is es-             merman and Minello,   1984a). Some species,
                 sential to the viability of the Chesapeake Bay                 such as mummichogs (minnows) and fiddler
                 and for providing fish for human consumption                   crabs, utilize wetlands throughout, their lifespan.
                 (Figure 3).                                                    Other species, such as striped bass, spawn in
                                                                                waters adjacent to tidal freshwater marshes
                 Fish and Wildlife Habitat                                      similar to those along the Pamunkey River (Mc-
                       Tidal wetlands are used by a large variety               Govern and Olney, 1988). Many coastal fish, in-
                 of birds, fish, mammals, and invertebrates for                 cluding spot, menhaden, and mullet, use
                 food, shelter, and spawning and nesting sites.                 wetlands as nursery areas for their juvenile
                 Approximately two-thirds of the fish and                       stage (Weinstein, 1979). The diet of menhaden
                                                                                has been shown to consist of 30% inarsh derived
                 shellfish species that are harvested commercial-
                                                                                detritus and 70% plankton (Deegan et al., 1990).
                 ly are associated with wetlands (Mitsch and Gos-
                 selink, 1986). These species include: blue crab,
                 oyster, clam, shrimp, striped bass, menhaden,
                 bluefish, flounder, sea trout, spot, and croaker.
                 Roias and Hackney (1984) found 29 species of                             Figure 3. Food Web.
                 fish in a tidal marsh and suggested that shallow











                                                                                   osprey



                                                                                            TOP CARNIVORES





                                                                                                          woman
                                                                  microalgao

                                                                                    PRIMARY
                                                                                    CONSUMERS
                                                                                                                          MKW
                         PRODUCERS

                                                                            bacteria  40o
                                                                             and                                          MLW
                                                                           p
                                                                             r0tozoa                                           I
                                                                                                    CO DARY
                                                                                                    NSUMERS
                                                                        DECOMPOSERS &
                                                                        DETRITUS FEEDERS
                              0





                                      4%1T'                                                                               @
                                                                                                                  TER IARY
                                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                                      SUMERS
                                                                                                                   ON





                                    SAND & MUDFLAT INFAUNA







              4



                                                                              waves propogate through a stand of grass, reduc-
              Of the nation's endangered and threatened                       tion in current velocity from additional friction
              species, 50% of the animals and 28% of the                      forces as it flows through grasses, and storage of
                                                                                                      1979). Wetlands have a
              plants are dependent on wetlands for their                      sand in dunes (Dean,,
              survival (Niering, 1988).                                       complex root and rhizome system that binds
                                                                              shoreline sediments together which helps reduce
                                                                              the loss of uplands t# coastal erosion.
                   Migratory waterfowl are dependent on wet-                       As wave action and current speed are
              lands for feeding during their seasonal                         reduced by the wetlahd, sediments in the water.
              stopovers. Metzgar et al., (1973) estimated that                settle to the bottom, 'resulting in improved water
              the Bay's wintering population of waterfowl has                 quality and -the build-up of the marsh surface.
              been more than one million. Various sbore and                   Knutson,et al., (1982.). found that more than
              wading birds use wetlands as. a food sourice and                50% of the energy associated with waves passing
              a location for nest sites. Atlantic coast salt mar-             through a fringe marsh was dissipated within
              shes are used for nesting by birds such as laugh-               the first eight feet ofthe marsh. A planted salt
              ing galls, Forster's terns, clapper-rails, willets,             marsh fringe may be an effective, inexpensive,
              and marsh hawks (Tiner, 1984). Coastal wet-                     and ecologically-preferred alternative to a
              lands are alsoused as foraging and, nest sites for              bulkhead or a reve'tment (Hardaway et al.,
              wading birds' such as the herons and egrets                     1984). Boon (1975) demonstrated that the- con-
              (Tiner,- 1984).                                                 figuration of meandering marsh creeks and
                                                                              broad tidal flats can cause diversion and reten-
              Shoreline Erosion Control                                       tion of peak tidal current flows. Wave height
                                                                              and current speedare also reduced by non-
                   Tidal wetlands provide a buffer against                    vegetated wetlands,'Such as beaches and
              shoreline erosion by reducing',wave energy and                  mudflats by causing,waves to spread out as they
              current velocity. Wetlands dissipate the full                   pass over the flat (Theiberge and Boesch, 1978).
              force of waves before they'reach upland areas.                  This reduces the final impact on the upland,
              Vegetated wetlands can reduce shoreline erosion                 thereby reducing *erosion of upland areas.
              by four mechanisms: increased stability of the,
              sediment-root matrix, wave dam ing as the                       Flood Protection
                                                  p
                                                                                   Wetlands adjacent to waterco        ses slow
                                                                                                                    ur
                                                                                                   surface water flow and may
                                                                                                   temporarily store flood
                                                                                                   waters. This effect is par-
                                                                                                   ticularly evident in riverine
                                                                                                   systems. Estuarine wetlands
                                RAINSTORM
                                                                                                   adjacent to tidal rivers pro-
                                                                                                                                    f
                                                                                                   vide a temporary storage o
                                      lilt I
                                      11 fill                                                      flood water, but their storage
                                        I I I'll' '-k- Higher flood and higher flows
                                        III till
                                                                                                   effect may be either in-
                                                                Lower flood crest and
                                                                    lower flows                    creased or reduced by the
                                                                                                   tidal stage during flooding
                                                                                                   (Carteret al., 1979). The
                                                                            WETLANDS
                                                                                         MU        ability of wetland vegetation
                                                                                                                               e
                      CC                                                                           to slow flood waters dep rids
                                                                        NO WETLANDS
                      - - - - - - - - - - - -                                            0
                                                                                       X.          on the type and density of
                      0                                                                  0
                      _J
                                                                                                   vegetation and the depth of
                                                                       . ........................... the water (Carter et al.,
                                              . .......... . . ................... .
                        ... ... .. .... ...... . ...
                           TIME                                                                    1979). These processes
                                                                                                   Oesynchronize peak flows by
                                                                                                   temporarily slowing and stor-
                                                                                                   ing water, which results in a.'
                    Figure 4. Wetland value in reducing flood crests and flow rates                non-simultaneous gradual
                    -after rainstorms (adapted from Tiner, 1984)                                   release of peak waters mini-
                                                                                                   mizing flow downstream
                                                                                                   (Figure 4) (Zacherle, 1984).
                                                                                                   Flood control has become in-
                                                                                                   creasingly important in










                urban areas where the rate and volume of                     direct economic benefits to the adjacent com-
                stormwater runoff have increased with non-                   munities.
                porous surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, and                 Economic benefits from hunting and fishing
                buildings. Mangrove swamps are so effective at               are significant: in 1980 furs from Triuskrats
                reducing flood levels and buffering storm water              yielded approximately $74 million; in 1980 5.3
                damage that the Federal Flood Insurance pro-                 million people spent $638 million on hunting
                gram requires coastal communities to probibit                waterfowl and other migratory birds; and in
                mangrove destruction if they wish to remain                  1975 sport fishermen spent $13.1 billion to catch
                eligible for insurance (Tiner, 1984).                        wetland dependent fishes in the U.S. (Burke et
                                                                             al., 1988), In 1980, 47 percent of Americans
                Water Supply                                                 spent $10 billion observing and photographing
                     Most wetlands are areas of groundwater                  waterfowl and other wetland birds (Burke et al.,
                discharge. In Massachusetts at least 60                      1988).
                municipalities have public wells in or near wet-                  The ablity of wetlands to control flood
                lands (Motts and Heeley, 1973). Some wetlands                waters reduces property damage from flooding,
                may recharge groundwater aquifers, but most do               and reduces costs for flood control structures.
                not. Recharge potential varies according to wet-             Property damage from floods for 1975 in the U.S.
                land type, geographic location, season, soil type,           was estimated to be $3.4 billion (U.S. Water
                water table location and precipitation (Tiner,               Resources Council, 1978). The U.S. Army Corps
                1984). Most estuarine intertidal wetlands are                of Engineers found that buying wetlands ad-
                discharge rather that recharge areas (Carter et              jacent to the Charles River in Massachusetts
                al., 1979). In coastal areas large groundwater               was the most inexpensive solution to flooding
                withdrawls for urban and industrial use have                 problems in the Charles River Basin (Tiner,
                                                                             1984). Wetlands provide perpetual values,
                caused saltwater intrusion into the drinking                 (Table 1) whereas economic benefits from wet-
                water aquifers.                                              land destruction are finite (Mitsch and Gos-
                                                                             silink, 1986).
                Economic and Recrea-
                tional Values

                     The economic benefits
                of wetlands are realized in                 Table 1. Tidal Wetland Values.
                natural products, shoreline
                erosion control, stormwater                 ECOLOGICAL VALUES
                treatment, flood protection,                   Water Quality Improvement
                water supply, livestock graz-                      0  Pollutant removal
                ing, and recreation.                               0  Sediment trapping
                Natural products include                           0  Nutrient recycling
                timber, fish, shellfish, water-                    0  Wastewater treatment
                fowl, furbearers, peat, and
                wild rice. Commercially im-                    Aquatic Productivity
                portant species such as
                striped bass, menhaden,                        Fish And Wildlife Habitat
                bluefish, flounder, spot, blue
                crabs, oysters, and clams                          0  Spawning and nesting sites
                are partially dependent on                         0 Nursery areas for young
                coastal wetlands during                            0 Shelter from predators
                some part of their life his-
                tory. Wetland grasses are                   SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES
                also used for livestock graz-                      0  Shoreline Erosion Control
                ing or harvested for hay.                          0  Flood protection
                Recreational activities in                            Groundwater recharge and discharge
                wetlands include boating,                             Natural products (timberfish,waterflowl)
                swimming, fishing, hunting,
                and nature study. All of                              Recreation (boating, fishing, hunting)
                these activities and
                products derived from wet-
                lands bring direct and in-







              6


              Wetland Losses                                                  Marine Science (VIMS), and Game and Inland
                 .  Human threats to wetlan     Ids inclu.de                  Fisheries.
              drainage, pollution, dredging, filling, shoreline                     Concerned citizens can assist in wetland
                                                                              protection through various activities by: attend-
              structures, groundwater withdrawal, and im-
              poundments Between 1956 and 1977, coastal                       ing Wetlands Board public hearings, locating
              wetland loss*in Virginia was approximately 6.3                  and monitoring wetlands in their area, support-
              thousand acres (Tiner, 1987). Of those losses,                  ing wetland legislation, informing neighbors and
              urban development accounted for 43 percent,                     developers of the values of wetlands, and en-
              and coastal waters (from impoundments) ac-                      couraging them to minimize their impact on wet-
                                                                              lands.
              counted for 36 percent (Tiner, 1987). The
              natural inland migration of wetlands is slowed
              or stopped where bulkheads or riprap are placed                 "In the beginningi wetlands were considered
              along shorelines for erosion control'. As se -a       Ilevel    valueless. Only when most of the native
              rises, wetlands in front of hardened shorelines                 'waterfowl vanished was it determined that
              will eventually be drown    Ied. Wave -reflection               wetlands might ensure the survival of many
              from shoreline defense structures may ac-                       endangered plant@ and animals. Only after
              cele'rate erosion. on adjacent or 6hannelward wet-              billions of dollars were spent on structural
              lands. Natural events that may cause wetland                    flood control that resulted in further flood-
              loss include rising s e*a level, natural succession,
                                                                              ing were wetlands rec               for reducing
                                                                                                        ogm
              the hydrologic cycle, sedimentation', erosion,                  flood peaks. Onl 'after additional billions
              beaver dam constuction,     and fire ffine@r, 1984).                                Y
              As wetlands- are'lost so are their associated                   were spent to purify streams was it        ' realized
                                                                              wetlands naturally filter pollutants for
              benefits.
                                                                              free." (Illinois, Institute of Natural Resour-
              Regulation of Tidal Wetlands                                    ces)
                    In 1972 Virginia enacted a law with the in-
              tent to protect tidal wetlands while accommodat-                Bibliography
              ing necessary economic development, The
                                                                              Anderson, G., J., Brokaw, T. Lassen, G. Mapp,
              Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)                         and L. D. Theberge. 1978. In: E. L. Shea
              was given the responsibility of lead state agency.
                                                                                  and N. B. Theberge, eds. WetlandEvalua-
              Under the Act's local option alternative most
                                                                                  tion and Management in Virginia. SRAM-
              localities have adopted themodel ordinance and
              administer their programs through local wet-          . I           SOE No. 211, Virginia Institute 'of Marine
              lands boards and ordinances. Federal wetland                        Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 116 pp.
              regulation under the Clean Water Act is ad-                     Boon, J.D. 1976. Tidal discharge asymmetry in
                                                                                  a saltmarsh drainage system. Limnology
              ministered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                      and Ocean. 20(l):71-80.
              (COE) and overseen by the U.S. Environmental                    Boto, M G. and W. H. Patrick, Jr.     1979., Role of
              Protection Agency (EPA). The Corps and the                          wetlands in the removal of suspe'   .nded sedi-
              VMRC have developed a joint permit *application                     ments. 1n: P. E. Greeson, et. al. Wetland
              that is used by the local, state, and thefederal                    Functions and Values: The State of Our Un-
              regulatory authorities to streamline the permit                     derstanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc.
              process. The Commonwealth has compiled a set                        pp. 479-489.     ' *
              of Wetland Guidelines which describe tidal wet-                 Burke, D. G., E. J. Me ers, R. W. Tiner Jr., and
                                                                                                      y
              land types, their values, and methods of coastal                    H. Groman. 1688. Protecting nontidal wet-
              construction that minimize wet.1and impacts.                        lands. American Planning Association.
              These guidelines can be used to assi it appli6ants                  Washington D.C.
              when filling out the joint permit application.                  Carter, V., M. S. Bedinger, R. P. Novitski and W.
              Other state and federal agencies that may com-                      0. Wilen. 1979. In: P. E. Gree-son, et al.
              ment on wetland applications during the joint                       Wetland Functions and Values: The State of
              permit review include: the U.S. Fish and                            Our Understanding. Amer. Water Resour-
              Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Ser-                    ces Assoc. pp. 344-376.
              vice, Environmental Protection Agency, Council                  Cerco, C. F. and A. Y Kuo. 1979. Water quality
              on the Environment, the State Department of                         in a small tidal, creek: Parker Creek,
              Health, State Water Control Board, Shoreline                        Virginia. SRAMSOE No. 231 Virginia In-
              Erosion Advisory Service, Virginia Institute of                     stitute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
                                                                                  Va. 112 pp.








                                                                                                                                  7




                 Dean, R. G. 1979., Effects of vegetation on                  Motts, W. S. and R. W. Heeley. 1973. Wetlands
                     shoreline erosional processes. in: P. E.                     and groundwater. In: J. S. Larson, ed. A
                     Greeson, et al. Wetland Functions and                        Guide to Important Characteristics and
                     Values: The State of Our Understanding.                      Values of Freshwater Wetlands in the North-
                     Amer. Water Resources Assoc. pp. 415-426.                    east. University of Massachusetts, Water
                 Deegan, L. A., B. J. Peterson, and R. Portier.                   Resources Research Center. Pub. No. 31, pp.
                     1990. Stable isotopes and cellulase activity                 5-8.
                     as evidence for detritus as a food source for            Niering, W. A- 1988. Endangered, threatened
                     juvenile Gulf menhaden. Estuaries 13:14-19.                  and rare wetland plants and animals of the
                 Grant, R. R., Jr. and R. Patrick. 1970. Tinicum.                 continental United States. In: D. D. Hook
                     Marsh as a water purifier. In: Two Studies                   and others, eds. The Ecology and Manage-
                     of Tinicum Marsh. The Conservation Foun-                     ment of Wetlands, Vol. 1 Ecology of Wet-
                     dation. pp. 105-123.                                         lands. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.
                 Hardaway, C. S., G. R. Thomas, AL W. Azcherle,                   p.227-238.
                     and B. K. Fowler. 1984. Vegetative erosion               Rozas, L. P. and C. T. Hackney. 1984. Use of
                     control project: Final report 1984. Virginia                 oligohaline marshes by fishes and macro-
                     Institute of Marine Science, School of                       faunal crustaceans in North Carolina. Es-
                     Marine Science, College of William and                       tuaries 7: 213-224.
                     Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.                        Sloey, W. E., F. L. Spangler, and C. W. Fetter,
                 Hines, A. H., R. N. Lipcius and A- M. Haddon.                    Jr. 1978. Management of freshwater wet-
                     1987. Population dynamics and habitat par-                   lands for nutrient assimilation. In: R. E.
                     -titioning by size, sex, and molt stage of blue              Good, et al. Freshwater Wetlands. Ecologi-
                     crabs Callinectes sapidus in a subestuary of                 cal Processes and Management Potential.
                     central Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog.                     Academic Press, New York. pp. 321-340.
                     Ser. 36: 55-64.                                          Sweeney, J. T. 1980. Measurement and
                 Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, Illinois                analysis of tidal marsh fluxes of oxygen
                     Wetlands, p. ix. Quoted in Zinn, j. A. and                   demanding materials. College of William
                     Copeland, C. 1982. Wetland Management.                       and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine
                     Congressional Research Service The Library                   Science Master's Thesis. 122 pp.
                     of Congress, Washington D.C.                             Teal, J. and M. 1969. Life and Death of a Salt
                 Kadlec, R. G. and J. A. Kadlec. 1979. Wetlands                   Marsh. Boston. Little, Brown, and Co. 274
                     and water quality. In: P. E. Greeson, et al.                 PP.
                     Wetland Functions and Values: The State of               Theberge, L. and D. F. Boesch. 1978. Values
                     Our Understanding. Amer. Water Resources                     a.nd management strategies for non-
                     Assoc. pp. 436-456.                                          vegetated tidal wetlands. Special Scientific
                 Knutson, P. L., R. A. Brochu, W. N. Seelin, and                  Report No. 90, Virginia Institute of Marine
                     M. Inskeep. 1982. Wave damping in Spar-                      Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia. 55 pp.
                     tina alterniflora marshes. Wetlands 2: 87-               Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United
                     104.                                                         States: Current Status and Recent Trends.
                 McGovern, J. C. and J. E. Onley. 1988. Poten-                    Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                     tial Predation by Fish and Invertebrates on                  Service.
                     Early Life History Stages of Striped Bass in             Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1987. Mid-Atlantic Wetlands a
                     the Pamunkey River, Virginia. Transactions                   Disappearing Natural Treasure.
                     of the American Fisheries Society 117:152-                   Washington, D. C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                     161.                                                         Service.
                 Metzgar, R. G. 1973. Wetlands in Maryland.                   U. S. Water Resources Council. 1978. Es-
                     Maryland Dept. of State Planning, Bal-                       timated flood damages. Appendix B., Nation-
                     timore, Md.                                                  wide Analysis Report. Washington, D. C.
                 Mitseb, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1986. Wet-                Virginia Natural Resources Newsletter. 1989.
                     lands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New                        Vol. 3.
                     York, NY.








           8





           Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best                  Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fish.
                Management Practices Handbook Agricul-                     Bull. 77: 339-357.
                ture. Planning Bulletin 316.                          Zacherle. A. W. 1984. A method for evaluating
           Wass, M. L., and T. D. Wright. 1969. Coastal                    the long-term, cumulative impacts of tidal
                wetlands of Virginia. Special Report No. 10                marsh alterations: the York River system - a
                in Applied Marine Science and Ocean En-                    case study. College of William and Mary,
                gineering, Virginia Institute of Marine                    Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.                       Master's Thesis. 197 pp.
           Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats               Zimmerman, R. J. and T. J. Minello. 1984. Den-
                as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfish,             sities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus,
                                                                           and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt
                                                                           marsh. Estuaries 7: 421-433.


























                                                                                                        NON PROFITORGANIZATION
                                  Technical                                                                U. S. POSTAGE PAID

                        P
                            ram Repoft                                                                    GLOU. PT., VA 23062
                         rog                                                                                  PERMIT
              College of William and Mary
              Virginia Instittite of Madne Science
              School of Madne Science
              Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062






                                                                                 Compensatory Mitigation
                                                 Program                       Within the Tidal Wetlands
                                                                                                         of Virginia



                                                 .............
                                                                                                     Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.
                                                                                                   and Pamela.Anne Mason


                                                                           ]Introduction
                         Technical                                              As the population in the coastal zone continues its rapid expan-
                                                                           sion, pressures increase to develop wetlands and other sensitive
                         Report                                            natural areas. One third of the nation's wetlands have been lost in
                                                                           the past 200 years, and presently more than 300,000 acres are lost
                                                                           annually (Hamon and McConnell 1983, Tiner 1984). While much
                                                                           of the loss of wetlands occurs naturally due to subsidence or
                         .............................                     erosion, the majority of the loss is caused by man's activities in
                         ......        ... ....... .WM.
                         ..... . ...

                                     ...........
                                                    .......                channelization, flood control, agricultural land conversion, and
                           . ......           ... ... ... .
                                                           . . . . . .......
                                                                           dredging (Farnell 1981, Wakefield 1982). Even though it is
                                     .. ........... ......
                                     ..................................
                                                                           generally recognized that wetlands have high ecological value and
                                                                           provide natural services such as water quality maintenance,
                         .........................
                         ....................
                                                       i@gii..             development pressures continue due to economic factors.. In Vir-
                                                 .. ........    X
                         ...........               .......... . ....
                         ............  ... ......
                                       ... .......
                                                                              nia the number of wetlands permit applications reviewed by the
                                           X             .................
                                                           .......         gi
                                              .............
                         ........... .. . . . .......... .
                                              ................
                                              ................
                         ......... ... . . .
                                              ...........                  Wetlands Advisory Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                                              ...........
                         ................
                                                                           (VIMS) has increased from 372 in 1980 to 935 in 1980.
                                                                                During this same time period, both, the regulatory and develop-
                                                                           ment communities have been looking for methods by which the ad-
                         Commonwealth's                                    verse impacts of wetland development might be mitigated. One
                         Declared Policy.                                  method which has seen increased use is that of compensatory
                                                                           mitigation. Generally this is the term used for the practice of con-
                         "to preserve the                                  structing a new, similar wetland as compensation for one which is
                         wetlands and to                                   filled or otherwise disturbed by development activities. In theory
                         prevent their                                     the new wetland would serve to offset the losses incurred by the en-
                                                                           vironment due to destruction of the natural wetland.
                         despoliation and                                       Although the theoretical value of wetlands compensation makes
                         destruction. .                                    it very appealing and the practice has become increasingly com-
                                                                           mon, it is generally the subject of controversy due to studies in-
                                                                           dicating less than successful implementation of the concept in
                                                                           application. Many of these studies are controversial in themselves
                         This report was funded, In part, by               due to the difficulty inherent in defining what constitutes a "suc-
                         the Virginia Council on the                       cessful" created wetland. Habitat creation is predicated on the
                         Environment's Coastal Resources                   theory that man-made systems can function on a par with natural
                         Management Program through
                         grant # NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the                     systems. Major difficulties are encountered in determining when
                         National Oceanic and Almos-                       created wetlands reach ecological parity with the natural systems
                         @e@proi


















                         pheric Administration.                            they theoretically replace. How does one measure and then com-
                                                                           pare the function and value of systems which at best are only poor-
                                                                           ly understood to begin with? Man-made wetlands are particiilarly
                                                                           poorly understood because the concept is relatively new and very
                                                                           little scientific information is available at present (Shisler and
                         Printed on recycled paper                                                                                                         (continued)








        2


        Charette 1984, Race 1985). Many plant species               Wetlands are regulated in Virginia by a cadre of
        are slow colonizers and may take very long                  31 local wetlands boards whose activities are
        periods of time to attain natural densities and             overseen by the Virginia Marine Resources Com-
        rates of production. In addition, the substrate             mission, a state agency. The Corps of Engineers
        changes over time as sediments and peat ac-                 manages these same wetlands from the federal
        cumulate and different plant species invade the             perspective. Because there is no centralized list-
        new wetland. During the development period,                 ing of marsh creation sites or agency which
        both plant production and habitat value are                 tracks projects as they are permitted in Virginia,
        generally low (Thayer, et al. 1986). Also, many             each regulatory body in the state was petitioned
        different types of wetland plant communities,               and a list of compensation projects was
        many of which have no history of successful es-             generated from the responses of the 31 extant
        tablishment, are being used as compensation                 wetlands boards, the staff of the Virginia Marine
        with no predictable probability of long-term es-            Resources Commission (VMRC), personnel of the
        tablishment. As a result, the validity of wet-              Regulatory Functions Branch of the Norfolk Dis-
        lands creation as a management tool has been                trict of the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
        questioned (Race and Christie 1982, Knutz 1987).            the staff of the Wetlands Advisory Program of
             The appeal of compensation to developers,              the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College
        other landowners and the regulatory community               of William and Mary.
        is understandable. It can be looked upon as a                     The resulting list of potential compensation
        form of having your cake and eating it too. If              survey sites has 51 entries (Figure 1). This in-
        compensation works, development can occur, per-
        mits can be issued and at the same. time
        resource loss is prevented. Some states have                Figure 1. Distribution of Permitted Tidal Wet-
        adopted mandatory compensation for all wet-                 land Compensation Sites in the Coastal Plain of
        lands losses. Others have refused to rely on wet-           Virginia in 1989.
        lands creation except in rare
        circumstances. With the adoption by many
        federal and state programs of the "no net
        loss" goal for wetlands resources, pressures
        will very likely increase to employ compen-
        sation as one method of achieving the objec-
        tive. The overall question remains,
        however, as to how well created marshes
        restore the functional values of the resour-
        ces they theoretically replace and how well
        the compensation concept is implemented
        on a day-to-day basis.
             The study described herein has as its
        primary purpose an examination of how
        compensatory mitigation has worked as a
        wetlands management tool to date in Vir-
        ginia (i.e., how well theory has been put
        into practice).@' Our approach was to look at                                                   >_
        the overall use of compensation in coastal                                                     I
        Virginia based on regulatory records and to                                                    V           3
        examine as many existing created wet-
        lands as possible within the tidal area of
        the state to determine how closely these
        projects have come, both singly and collec-
        tively, to fulfilling the compensatory goal of                                              2
        wetland replacement.
                                                                                               5     2
        Methodology and Limitatioms

             This study is a survey of wetland com-
        pensation sites created through require-                                                 8
        ments of the permit process in Virginia.








                                                                                                                               3



                elusive list was examined to determine which of             mites australis), faunal associations, etc. supple-
                the potential sites were suitable to be surveyed            mented the cover survey information.
                as part of this study. Sites eliminated were those
                which were too recently permitted or had had                Results and Discussion
                less than two years of growth. Also eliminated
                from sampling due to time constraints and their                  A total of 51 compensatory mitigation
                minimal size were 11 sites under 1,000 square               projects were identified as a result of this sur-
                feet in total area. Logistic problems, the in-              vey. The earliest permitted,wetland compensa-
                ability to locate the site or gain access, removed          tion projects identified in our survey were two
                5 sites from the list. Because there is no agency           which were authorized in 198 1. Although some-
                tracking of compensation projects, many                     what variable, the number of permits issued in-
                problems were encountered in trying to evaluate             volving wetland compensation increased
                project objectives versus the outcome based on              generally on an annual basis between 1981 and
                permit file data. Evaluation of a number of                 1989 (Figure 2). It is not possible, given the data
                projects had to be eliminated or cut short for              available, to determine whether the increase in
                these reasons. The result was 32 sites visited.             compensation projects reflects an increase in
                     Percent cover estimates were made at each              popularity of the practice among the regulatory
                of the compensation sites and where possible at             community or whether it is accounted for simply
                adjacent natural sites. In highly developed                 by the increase in the total volume of permits
                areas, the compensation sites were often isolated           which also climbed steadily during the same
                and lacked any contiguous natural wetlands. A               time frame. Ten compensation permits were is-
                few sites were adjacent to natural wetlands of to-          sued in 1988, the most for any year in our sur-
                tally different vegetative community character.             vey. The permit data for 1,989, the year of the
                In these cases, no cover estimate was deter-                survey, were incomplete. The 'average number
                mined for a natural site. Qualitative observa-              of compensation projects permitted annually
                tions were made at each site where such factors             since 1981 was 6.3.
                as bird use, invasion by the opportunist (Phrag-


                Figure 2

                                      WETLANDS COMPENSATION STUDY
                                  COMPENSATION PROJECTS PERMITTED
                                                 ANNUALLY: 1981-1989






                           V) 14--


                           CL

                             10'.


                           Co








                              2--



                                      1281    1982 1983 1954 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989*
                                                                       YEAR
                                                                                     * 1989 data incomplete








          4



           Figure 3
                                      WETLANDS COMPENSATION STUDY
                                         HISTORICAL MITIGATION RATIOS
                                                          1981-1989










                            C)













                                           1*1         2:1          <1:1       >1;1        UNK
                                                           MITICATION RATIO

                Since wetland compensation was first per-              ratios of 1:1 or less than 1:1 were the rule and
          mitted for use in Virginia in 1981, a total of 32.3          were permitted 60 percent of the time. If all
          acres of man-made wetlands has been ordered as               projects were constructed successfully, these
          compensation for projects impacting a total of               figures would indicate a slight gain in wetland
          31.3 acres of aquatic habitat. The average size              acreage.
          mitigation area permitted was 0.68 acres. If,                     Smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora,
          however, the seven projects over one acre in size            was the vegetation planted or seeded in 83 per
          are deleted, the average man-made wetlands is                cent of the projects permitted (Mgure 5). Areas
          0.12 acres. The latter average is more indicative
          of the size projects generally constructed in Vir-            Figure 5
          ginia since a total of 43 compensation projects
          are below one acre in size and 9 are below 1,000                   WETLANDS COMPENSATION STUDY
          square feet. The seven large projects mentioned                            SPECIES PLANTED
          above account for 79% of the 32.3 acre wetland                         S. cyno. 2X
          compensation total.                                             Not. Reveg. 5.9%                  S. Pat
               The theoretical acreage figures for man-
          made vs. natural marsh, presented in the forego-
          ing paragraph, demonstrate an overall                                                              Fwrnx. 3.9X
          mitigation ratio of slightly greater than 1:1. The
          actual numbers from permit files are shown in                                                     Unknown 5.9%
          Figures 3 arid 4. These data demonstrate that                                 S ft               S. alt./ S. cyna. 2X

           Figure 4
                  WETLANDS COMPENSATION STUDY
                    HISTORICAL MITIGATION RATIOS                                               Fwm  ftod@bW &W w0
                             1981-1989                                 were permitted to naturally revegetate in only 6
                                                                       percent of the permits. Since this survey only
                                                                       covers tidal areas and in general smooth
                                    36 5X                              cordgrass has the highest historical planting suc-
                          2:1                                          cess rate, these figures are not surprising. The
                          19.2%                                        use of smooth cordgrass would also be expected
                                                 UNK. 5.8%             since it is a vigorous plant that spreads rapidly
                                                                       via rhizome growth. It can be established via
                             23.1%    15.4%
                                                                       plugging or seeding.







                                                                                                                                 5



                     Eighty percent of the permits issued requir-            extent that this occurs, it negates the compen-
                ing wetland compensation were issued for con-                satory aspects of these projects. The permit
                struction "onsite". "Offsite, same basin" and                record data regarding site characteristics were
                "offsite" accounted for the remaining twenty per-            often quite incomplete. Some of the permit files
                cent (Figure 6). If implemented as permitted,                seemed to indicate that projects may have in-
                                                                             volved restoration of disturbed areas in some
                 Figure 6                                                    cases rather than purely wetland for wetland.
                                                                             In other cases it was clear that one marine
                     WETLANDS COMPENSATION STUDY                             habitat such as subaquatic bottom or higher
                      COMPENSATION SITE LOCATION                             elevation marsh was used to create a different
                                                                             marsh community for compensatory mitigation
                                                                             purposes.
                                                                                  Cover estimates were made at eighteen of
                                                                             the compensation marshes visited. The inves-
                             ONSnE                                           tigators were able to sample similar adjacent
                             do.4A                                           marshes at eight of these sites. A total of four of
                                                                             the eight compensation marshes sampled had
                                            13.7%                            significantly lower cover than their respective ad-
                                                    OFFSIFFE, SAME BASN      jacent natural systems (Figure 8). Slope runoff
                                                                             and perhaps tidal communication appeared to be
                                                                             the problem at two of the sites. Tidal com-
                                              OFFSITE 5.9%                   munication and substrate elevation appeared to
                                                                             have adversely affected vegetation at the two
                                                                             other sites.
                these figures indicate the generally accepted                     The cover data for all eighteen sites were
                prioritization for these three choices of location           also pooled to examine the overall differences be-
                are being followed in the tidal areas of Virginia.           tween the man-made and natural wetlands. A
                     Data on the general site character of areas             significant difference was found at the 99 per-
                permitted to be used for compensation are                    cent confidence level for the pooled data. The
                presented in Figure 7. Seventy percent of the                mean cover for all man-made marshes was 41
                                                                             percent and that for the natural systems was 63
                 Figure 7                                                    percent. The cover estimates noted above are an
                                                                             important indicator of how successful a marsh is
                                                                             at that particular point in time. This one
                     WETLANDS COMPENSATION STUDY                             parameter, however, is one indicator and not con-
                     COMPENSATION SITE CHARACTER                             clusive evidence of success or lack thereof. In
                                                                             order to say any more about the success of wet-
                                                                             land community establishment in the man-
                              UPLAND                                         made versus the natural marshes of this survey,
                              70.6%                                          destructive sampling techniques such as peak
                                                                             standing crop, stem density and below-ground
                                                                             biomass are necessary. This approach was not
                                                      SUBAQUArIC 3.9%        considered feasible for a survey of this type, deal-
                                                                             ing with many small, privately-owned marshes.
                                                    WMAND 11.8%                   In order to further examine wetland com-
                                                                             pensation in Virginia, the authors looked at the
                                                                             acreages proposed to be constructed and that
                                         UPLAND/WE7LAND                      which was found at the sites. Two of the large
                                                                             compensation sites could not be accurately
                Ipermits issued required the grading down of                 measured and so are not included in these num-
                                                                             bers. For the sites visited in this survey,
                uplands, while thirty percent involved the use of            709,358 sq. ft. of wetland was to be constructed.
                both upland and wetland, wetland only or the                 Our observations indicate that 68,792 sq. ft.
                use of subaquatic habitat. These data indicate               either was never constructed or was generally
                that if all projects are constructed as proposed,            devoid of marsh vegetation at the time of our
                something less than thirty percent of the                    site review. This amounts to approximately 10
                projects will involve the construction of wetlands           percent of the total extent of the compensation
                on some type of existing marine habitat. To the







            6



             Figure 8

                                    WETLANDS COMPENSATION SITES
                                                   COVER ESTIMATES
                                              NATURAL vs MAN-MADE

                                                                                                 LEGEND

                           70--                                                                        NATURAL

                                                                                                       MAN-MADE







                        LU
                        9            X

                           30



                           10






                                                   S' -,  S'     7     12      13     15
                                                          SITES
                                                                                      X Signirficantly different. P<0.01




            sites examined. If this ratio holds for all compen-          Conclusions and Recommendations
            sation within Virginia, it would mean that   Iap-
            proximately 3.1 acres of compensation marsh is                    In overview, our survey results support the
            non-functional or non-existent. In. addition to              continued use of wetland compensation by the
            this factor, our survey indicates that although              regulatory community, but only on a highly
            the exact acreages are not known, app roximately             limited basis (i.e., generally as a last resort).
            12 percent of the mitigation sites permitted in              The study documents problems with implementa-
            Virginia to date were on sites which were a]-                tion of the concept iri both wetland estab-
            ready wetlands. The compensatory value..of                   lishment success and regulatory decision-
            these "wetland to wetland" areas would have to               making. Our coverdata and historical decision
            be in question.                                              characterization indicate that adverse impacts
                 A number of other factors were observed to              (i.e., the net loss of wetland habitat) are prob-
            be affecting the quality of some of the compensa-            able on a local scale. If wetland compensation
            tion sites examined in  ithis survey. Several mar-           continues to see increasing. use, these relatively
            shes were being adversely affected by                        small local effects could have cumulative sig-
            sedimentation which came from unstabilized, ad-              nificance. Increased planning, monitoring and
            jacent land. Several were adversely affected by              research'are recommended in order to effectively
            the activities which were occurring in their im@             deal with such an eventuality. The pressures of
            mediate vicinity and from which they were not                growth in the coastal zone, and the adoption of
            buffered. In addition, 65 percent of the "new"               "No Net Loss" policies almost ensure more pres-
            marshes were already being invaded by the less               sure for compensatory mitigation in the future.
            desirable opportunist, Phragmites australis.                 These recommendations along with the newly
            The quality of the marsh as compensation for                 promulgated "Wetland Compensation
            that lost to development may be diminished to                Guidelines" should address the concerns brought
                                     X





































            the extent that this species is able to displace             out by this study.
            the wetlands species planted. This is not a                       Wetland compensation has had a relatively
            measurable factor at present, however.                       limited role in tidal Virginia to date. Based on








                                                                                                                                              7


                  the results of our survey, 32.3 acres of tidal wet-                and the field surveys conducted as part of this
                  lands have been proposed for creation since 1981                   study, we offer the following recommendations:
                  (the earliest application year identified). This
                  eight-year acreage total is dwarfed by the                                  Record-keeping for compensatory mitiga-
                  215,000 acre total for tidal wetlands in Virginia                           tion projects should be improved through
                  and is a relatively small proportion of permitted                           consolidation and standardization. A
                  wetland losses of approximately twenty acres an-                            centralized record repository is needed.
                  nually (VIMS'Wetlands Advisory Program, un-
                  published data). Our data indicate a slowly                                 All projects should have post-construc-
                  increasing use of compensation as a manage-                                 tion inspections and selected projects
                  ment tool. In terms of project numbers, wetland                             should be monitored for viability and
                  compensation in Virginia is dominated by small                              ecological function. The monitoring
                  projects. In terms of wetland acreage, however,                             should include similar, adjacent natural
                  seven projects over one acre in size compose 79                             systems where possible.
                  percent of the 32.3 acre wetland compensation
                  total.                                                                      Regulatory agencies should give greater
                        Our research indicates that 10 percent of                             consideration to the siting and buffering
                  this total was not constructed or has been adver-                           of wetland compensation areas during
                  sely affected by other external factors to the                              permit review. The aim should be to
                  point that it is not viable wetland. Additionally,                          minimize the impacts to the wetland
                  the man-made compensation marshes exhibited                                 from adjacent physical features (i.e., sedi-
                  significantly lower vegetative cover than the                               ment erosion and deposition), and from
                  natural wetlands sampled. These results indi-                               adjacent activities such as farming and
                  cate that even though the planned overall mitiga-                           development.
                  tion ratio within Virginia is slightly greater than
                  1:1, the effective ratio in terms of successful                             More attention should also be directed to
                    arsh establishment may be significantly less                              other planning aspects such as tidal
                  than that envisioned by the permitting agencies.                            hydrology and substrate elevation. Slow-
                  in

                  If in practice anthropogenic wetlands are sig-                              spreading species such as Spartina
                  nificantly less productive and in some cases                                cynosuroides should generally not be
                  never establish as planned, we may be in a sense                            planted or should be mixed with faster
                  mortgaging our wetland future.                                              growing species such as Scirpus robustus
                        Our study indicates that, in general, state                           and Spartina alterniflora.
                  regulators are using compensation on        Ia conserva-
                  tive basis. Record keeping is highly variable and                           Phragmites australis should be studied
                  much of the permit information available is                                 to determine its impact on created mar-
                  maintained at different locations within the                                shes and how best to naturally control it
                  regulatory community. There is much informa-                                if this is deemed necessary.
                  tion that is apparently not available due to the
                  fact that there are no standard record-keeping                              Wetland compensation should take into
                  practices for compensation projects. In addition,                           consideration regional wetland manage-
                  there is some indication that monitoring and fol-                           ment needs through the use of com-
                  low-up are being employed on a limited basis, al-                           prehensive shoreline inventories or other
                  though this effort appears to have little                                   information systems.
                  consistency. Most of the follow-up which does
                  occur appears to be at the behest of the federal                            Basic research aimed at increasing our
                  regulatory authority.                                                       knowledge of the values, structure and
                        If wetland compensation continues to be                               function of both anthropogenic and
                  used as a management tool or sees increasing                                natural wetland systems should be con-
                  use, as our survey indicates is happening, steps                            tinued.
                  should be taken to ensure that the compensation
                  wetlands are constructed in a manner which will                             Long-term monitoring of man-m4de wet-
                  ensure that they mature, in both structural and                             lands should be initiated in order to es-
                  functional aspects, into wetlands similar to exist-                         tablish what the realistic time tables are
                  ing natural systems. Based on our survey of per-                            for these systems to reach ecological
                  mit records, our ten years of field experience,                             parity with similar natural communities.
                                                                                              These efforts should involve multi-







                8

                         parameter investigations as well as                      Race, M. S. and D. R. Christie. 1982. Coastal zone
                         structurally diverse wetland types.                            development: mitigation, marsh creation and
                Literature Cited                                                        decision-making. Environ. Manage. 6(4):317-
                                                                                        328.
                Farnell, S. 1981. Iegal options for wetland manage-               Shisler, J. K. and D. J. Charette.' 1984. Evaluation of
                      ment, p. 237-248. In: Proceedings of the                          artificial salt marshes in New Jersey. New Jer-
                      Seventh Annual Conference of the Coastal
                      Society. October 11-14, 1981. Galveston, Texas.                   sey Agricultural Experiment Station Publication
                                                                                        No. P-40502-01-84. 169 p. Rutgers University,
                Hamon, M W. and C. A. McConnell. 1983. The                              New Brunswick, N.J.
                      politics of wetlands conservation: a wildlife               Thayer, G.- W., M. S. Fonseca and W. J. Kenworthy.
                      view. J. Soil and Water Cons. 2:93-95.                            1986. Wetland mitigation and restoration in the
                Knutz, G. 1987. Offsite habitat mitigation banking:                     Southeast United States and two lessons from
                      the Port of Long Beach experience, pp. 2530-                      seagrass mitigation, pp. 95-117. In: The Es-
                      2543. In: 0. T. Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner,                    tuarine Management Practice Symposium. Nov.
                      L. T. Tobin, D. Clark and G. Domurat (eds.),                      12-13, 1985. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
                      Coastal Zone '87 Proceedings of the fifth sym-
                      posium on coastal and ocean management. May                 Tiner, R. W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United
                      26-29. Seattle, Washington.                                       States: current status and recent trends. U.S.
                                                                                        Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 59
                Race, M. S. 1985. Critique of present wetlands                          P.
                      mitigation policies in the United States based on           Wakefield, P.11982. Reducing the federal role in wet-
                      an analysis of past restoration projects in San                   lands protection. Environment 24:6-13, 30-33.
                      Francisco Bay. Environ. Manage. 9(l):71-82.











                                                                                                                      NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
                                        Technical                                                                         U.S. POSTAGS PAID
                                        Report                                                                           GLOU. PT., VA 23062
                                                                                                                             PERMIT#6
                   College of William and Mary
                   Virginia lnsftte of Madne Science
                   School of Madne Science
                   Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062





                                     Wrogrc
                                                                                  Primary Producers
                                                                                     and Decomposers
                                                                                     of Intertidal Flats
                      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


                                                                                          Maryann WoMgemuth
                  Technical                                                   ntertidal flats are those coastal wetlands characterized
                                                                              by unconsolidated sediments located between mean
                  Repod                                                  Ihigh water and mean low water. The sediments may
                                                                         be composed of sand, mud, organic substrates, gravel, or
                                                                         shell. Mud and sand flats are often perceived as unproduc-
                                                                         tive and unimportant areas adjacent to vegetated marshes.
                                                                         These areas may appear to be nonvegetated because of the
                  .0
                                             . ..........                absence of the more conspicuous marsh grasses or other
                                       I. . .. ...
                                                                         emergentplants. However, tidal flats are vegetated with
                              'a
                              ... .........
                                      .1,
                        OW                    A
                                              . . . . ......             numerous species of algae, both large (macroalgae) and
                  ................ ........ .
                                                                         small (microalgae). Intertidal mudflats may be recognized
                     ....................
                  . . . I I i i I I I i i iiil vi
                                                                         at low tide as those mucky areas, difficult to walk through
                        .. ...........
                                                       ......            and smelling like rotten eggs. Sandflats are generally
                                   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                  . ...... .... .... ...                                 easier to walk across, and may be good areas to collect
                                                                         clams, oysters, crabs, or worms for fishing.
                  Commonwealth's                                                The organisms and processes that occur on intertidal
                  Declared Policy.                                       flats provide an essential component in the balance of the
                                                                         estuarine ecosystem. The next few pages present a sketch
                  "to preserve the                                       of some of the complex processes and fascinating or-
                  wetlands and to                                        ganisms that occur on intertidal flats.
                  prevent their
                  despoliation and                                       General Ecological Concepts
                  destruction. . .

                                                                                Energy from the sun provides the initial power source,
                                                                         that fuels ecosystem growth processes. Through the
                  This report was Ainded, In part, by                    process of photosynthesis, plants utilize the sun's energy to
                  the Virginia Council on the                            convert atmospheric carbon dioxide and water to oxygen
                  Environment's Coastal Resources
                  Management Program through                             and organic matter in the form of plant tissue. As a result
                  grant # NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the                          of this process, plants such as algae, grass, and trees are
                  National oceanic andAfrnos-
                  pheric Administration.                                 recognized as the primary producers of ecosystems. They
                                                                         produce the initial form of edible organic material upon
                                                                         which all living things depend. Many types of bacteria are
                                                                         also primary producers. Some are photosynthetic, using
                                                                         the energy from the sun to make organic matter, while
                                                                         others are cbemosynthetic, using energy from chemical
                  Pdnted on recycled paper 19                            compounds.

                                                                                                                                             (continued)







               2


                     Basic food and energy processes cycle                          the animals, plants, and fungi disappeared"
               nutrients and energy through producers, con-                         (Margulis, 1982).
               sumers and decomposers. Primary consumers
               (herbivores), such as crabs or fish consume the
                                                                                    Primary Producers of
               producers (plants). Secondary consumers, in-                         Intertidal Flats
               cluding larger fish, birds, or people feed upon
               the primary consumers. Decomposers, the bac-
               teria and fimgi, obtain their nutrition from                               The primary producers on the mud and
               degrading dead plant and animal biomass. As                          sand flats include: microalgae such as diatoms,
               they break down organic matter they remineral-                       cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), bacteria, and
               ize constituent nutrients including, carbon,                         macroalgae (Figure 2). Algae found living on
               nitrogen, and phosphorous. Remineralization is                       mud and sand flats are referred to as benthic
               the process of breaking up the organic biomass                       algae to describe their mode of living on the bot-
               into the components from which it was syn-                           tom. Though these plants may not be as con-
               thesized, the simple minerals (inorganic). These                     spicuous as the easily observed marsh grasses,
               become the raw materials or nutrient pool avail-                     they are important to the aquatic system for
               able to green plants for reuse in primary produc-                    several reasons. They produce an invaluable
               tion of food. Decomposers are therefore an                           food source, play an essential role in nutrient cy-
               essential link in the recycling of nutrients in all                  cling, and provide oxygen to the water column.
               ecosystems (Figure 1). "Life on earth would die                            The organic material produced by benthic
               out far faster if bacteria became extinct than if                    algae remains within the aquatic system where
                                                                                               it can be utilized as a food source.
                                                                                               Similarly, the oxygen produced by ben-
                                                                                               thic algae stays within the aquatic en-
               Figure 1. Food and energy cycling in an ecosystem.                              vironment. Whereas emergent marsh
                                                                                               plants may be utilized as a food source                  0
                                                                                               in terrestrial systems; and the oxygen
                                                                                               they produce is released to the atmos-
                                                                                               phere. The organic material produced
                                                                                               by algae supplies food for many
                                           SUN                                                 animals including snails, crabs, clams,
                                                                                               and a variety of fish (Figure U
                                                                                               Microalgae.and eyanobacteria are espe-
                                               lers                                            cially important in nutrient cycling be-
                                  (algae, plants, bacteda)                                     cause of their fast turnover rate and
                                                                                               because the are productive throughout
                                                                                                             'Y
                                     Veo                                                       the year. Annual turnover rate is the
                                                                                               number of times an organism replaces
                                                                   nsumers                     or reproduces itself in a year.
                                                          (zooplankton, fish, crabs)
            Nutdent Pool
            (carbon, n1trogen,                                                                 Aficroalgae
               phosphorous)
                                               Death.

                                                                                                     The microalgae community of in-
                                                                                               tertidal flats is generally dominated by
                                                                                               diatoms. Diatoms are single cell or-
                                                                                               ganisms that are often observed in
                                    Decomposers                                                dense colonies. Other microalgae ob-
                                     o3a&eda, fungl)                                           served seasonally include single cell
                    /00014




                                                                                               phytoplankton (free-floating plants),
                                                                                               such as green algae, dinoflagellates,







                                                                                                                                  3



                                                                            tant winter food source when other plants are
            Figure 2. Primary producers of intertidal flats.                dormant.
             Diatoms                  Green Algae                                Diatoms have optimal reproduction rates in
                                                                            the range of 0.5 to 6 doublings per day (Eppley,
                                                                            1977) resulting in annual turnovers of 182 -
                                                                            2190 times. Optimal rates may occur when.
                                                                            nutrients, light, temperature or other environ-
                                                                            mental parameters are not limiting. These
                                                                            reproduction rates are appreciable considering
                                        (to V long)    (to 3' long)         that.vascular marsh plants, like saltmarsh
                                      Red Algae                             cordgrass, may only turn over 1 - 2 times per
                                                                            year. This high turnover rate contributes to the
                                                                            high production rate of microalgae. Even though
                   (microscopic)                                            microalgae are small, their annual production
             Cyanobacteria                                                  may be significant because they reproduce many
             (blue-green algae)                                             times during the year. To estimate annual
                                                                            production, biomass from each turnover is
                                          (to Vlong)   (to V long)          summed. The rapid turnover rate of algae also
                                      Brown Algae                           utilizes and recycles nutrients at a high rate.
                                                                                 Microalgae are composed of relatively
                                                                            simple structural materials which provide a
                                                                            readily utilizable food source. Unlike most
                                                                            marsh plants that die and decay before being
                                                                            consumed, microalgae can be consumed directly.
                   (microscopic)            (to 1')        (to 2')          Algae are also valued in their ability to
                                                                            oxygenate the water column. Photosynthesis by
                                                                            benthic algae releases oxygen directly into the
             and other planktonic flagellates (Lippson et al.,              overlying water, which can result in a significant
             1979; Pomeroy, 1959).                                          contribution to dissolved oxygen concentrations.
                                                                            Patrick (1976) reports that unicellular algae are
                  Microalgae range from unicellular forms to                much more efficient oxygenators of water than
             larger colonial or filamentous forms. Diatoms                  the more complex emergent marsh plants.
             may be found as solitary cells or attached
             together in dense colonies. Diatom densities                   Cyanobacteria
             may be up to 40 million per square centimeter
             (about the size of a postage stamp) (Valiela,
             1984). At low tide, microalgae communities                          The resemblance of blue-green algae to
             growing on tidal flats appear as a discoloration               photosynthetic bacteria resulted in the name
             on the sediment surface. Diatoms may appear                    changeto cyanobacteria (Margulis, 1982).
             as a brownish film or gelatinous skin.                         Similar to the microalgae, cyanobacteria are
                  Microalgae are valuable to the estuarine                  valued for their high annual productivity, rapid
             ecosystem because they have a high annual                      turnover rate, readily utilizable food source, and
             productivity, fast turnover, provide a readily                 oxygen production. The structure of cyanobac-
             utilizable food source and oxygenate the water                 teria is typically a filament or chain of cells.
                                                                            Dense assemblages of filaments appear on inter-
             column (Diaz et al., 1982). Annual productivity                tidal flats as a greenish tinge or thick gelatinous
             of microalgae in a Delaware salt marsh was                     mass. Margulis (1982) reports that cyanobac-i
             reported to be approximately a third of the salt               teria are credited with providing primordial
             marsh production (Gallagher and Daiber, 1974).                 earth with the necessary oxygen concentrations
             Unlike emergent marsh plants, microalgae grow                  for the evolution of animals and plants. Ap-
             in winter as well as summer providing an impor-







             4


             proximately two billion years ago cyanobacteria             merged aquatic plants or other plants by the ab-
             increased the atmospheric oxygen concentration              sence of vascular tissue. Vascular tissue is the
             from less than 1 percent'to about 20 percent                circulatory system of plants, transporting water,
             (Margulis, 1982).                                           food, and wastes.


             Macroalgae                                                  Bactexia


                  Common benthic macroalgae found in Vir-                     Chemosynthetic and photosynthetic bac-
             ginia include the green algae (Chlorophyta), red            teria are also primary producers, using chemical
             algae (Rhodophyta), and brown algae.                        energy or the suns energy to produce organic
             (Phaeophyta) (Humm, 1979). Macroalgae are                   material. These bacteria are very important in
             commonly referred to as seaweed, and may be                 anaerobic (without oxygen) environments such
             found washed up on sandy beaches., A common                 as mudflats. High rates of production by
             green algae is sea lettuce which-looks similar to           chemosynthetic and photosynthetic bacteria
             the leaves of lettuce. Other examples of struc-             occur in the anoxic zone of the sediment in the
             tural forms are shown in Figure 2. Macroalgae               intertidal flats (Valiela, 1984). Here they recycle
             are most common on intertidal sand flats or at-             the energy and nutrients that are tied up in or-
             tached to rocks, shell, or logs on sand or mud              ganic matter buiied in sediments. Margulis
             flats. Macroalgae can be distinguished from sub-            (1982) states that bacterial photosynthesis and




                                               Marsh Plants
                                                (producers)


                                                                   Mud Snails                                          Red Algae


                            Fiddler Crab

                   Decomposing leaf
                      with microbi
                                         a
                        community
                                                                    Diatoms
                          (Detritus)
                                                                    Bacteria

                      Decomposers
                       (Bacteria and                                                                                                 'Ilk
                            Fungi)
                                                                                                                           @Vi ILe,










                                                                                       Typical microorganisms
                                                                                       found on the intertidal flat.







                                                                                                                              5



            chemosynthesis are essential for cycling the ele-             as a green or purple tinge on the sediment sur-
            ments and compounds which are fundamental to                  face. Decomposers obtain their nutrition by
            the survival of the entire biosphere and oursel-              breaking down dead plant and animal matter.
            ves. Bacteria are fed upon by microscopic                     Plant and animal tissues in various stages of
            animals which are fed upon by larger animals,                 decay are referred to as detritus, which is a valu-
            thus providing the base of a food web. Larger                 able food source for many marine organisms.
            animals also feed on bacteria by straining them                    Vegetated wetlands, such as the familiar
            out of the water column or scraping them from                 saltmarsh cordgrass wetlands, would be of far
            sediment or detrital particles.
                                                                          less value without the action of decomposers.
                                                                          Only minimal amounts of marsh vegetation are
            Decomposers                                                   directly grazed upon by herbivores. The
                                                                          majority, 95 percent, of the organic material
                 Tidal flat sediments are important sites for             produced in marshes is consumed as detritus
            converting complex plant and animal tissue into               (Patrick, 1976). The action of decomposers al-
            more utilizable food sources and for remineraliz-             lows the large amounts of organic tissue
            ing nutrients. The organisms responsible for                  produced in marshes to be degraded into a
            decomposition are the bacteria and fungi. The                 usable food source which would otherwise be use-
            density of bacterial cells is often so great they             less to the aquatic food web. Furthermore, the
            may form a bacterial film which can be observed               nutrients bound in organic matter would be lost



            Figure 3.     Mudflat composed of detritus and fine sediments covered with a
                          film of diatoms and bacteria, supports detrital food web.




.:Ireen Algae
sea lettuce)                                 Brown Algae
                                                                                                    --MHW



                     Blue crab                                                         Mummichog
                                                                                         (minnows)


                                                                Oysters

                                                                                                                  MLW -
                                          Mud Crab




                 Diatoms
            Cyanobacteria







             6


             from the ecosystem and not recycled without bac-              Detritus
             terial decomposition (Theberge and Boesch,
             1978). ,                                                           Detritus is a simple word for a complex of
                  Intertidal flats provide an environment for              decaying organic material and a dense com-
             decomposers to degrade organic material                       munity of microscopic organisms. One gram of
             produced in adjacent vegetated wetlands into                  detritus may contain up to 5 billion cells of bac-
             detritus. The microbial community on the inter-               teria (Zhukova, 1963). As plant or animal tissue
             tidal flats play an important role in transferring            is broken down by bacteria the fragmented parts
             the plant material produced in vegetated wet-                 are readily colonized by microorganisms such as
             lands to a variety of estuarine consumers. As                 diatoms, bacteria, fungi, ciliates, and flagellates.
             the microbes break down organic matter into                   These organisms are single cell or colonial in
             detritus and colonize it, they provide a food web             structure and provide a protein rich food source
             base for the estuarine ecosystem. The food                    for detrital feeding organisms (detritivores)
             source and nutrients made available by the                    (Bott, 1976). The ciliates and flagellates graze
             decomposers provide a stable and constant supp-               on the bacteria and fungi while this entire
             ly throughout the year, which may be especially               microbial community is grazed upon by larger
             important when plants are dormant and                         animals. These feeding pathways are part of the
             nutrient levels low.                                          detrital food web. The detritivores actually feed
                  Remineralization of nutrients by bacteria is             on the microorganisms skimmed from the non-
             a critical pathway in recycling nutrients in all              living organic debris (Levinton, 1982). The term
             ecosystems. As organic tissues are degraded,                  'gardeninghas b6en,used to describe this feed-
             remineralized nutrients such as carbon,                       ing process (Parsons  'et al., 1984). As the detri-
             nitrogen, phosphorous, and sulphur are                        tal particles pass through the gut of a detritus
             released. Bacterial decomposition releases sul-               feeder, microbes are digested while the majority
             phur as hydrogen sulphide gas which gives off                 of the plant tissues pass through the gut without
             the rotten egg smell in salt marshes. The ben-                being assimilated. The microbe-rich organic
             thic microbial community decomposes the avail-                matter passing through the gut is further frag-
             able organic mafter resulting in a continuous                 mented. The higher surface area to volume ratio
             recycling of nutrients between the bottom and                 of the fragmented particles can then support a
             the overlying water. The cycling of elements                  larger microbial community. Detrital particles
             within detritus, sediments and the water column               can be seen as a reusable carrier of food as well
             are due largely to the metabolic activities of bac-           as a food source.
             teria (Parsons et al., 1984). Nutrient fluxes                      Detritivores may be either deposit feeders
             across the sediment water interface are impor-                or filter feeders. Deposit feeders ingest sedimen-
             tant to the primary producers in summer when                  tary deposits and assimilate the, microbes, com-
             water column nutrients are low (Nixon et al.,                 posed of bacteria, microalgae, and fungi. Filter
             1976).                                                        feeders consume particles suspended in the
                  Bacterial cells have a fast tumoverrate                  water column using a variety of sievelike
             similar to the microalgae. They may undergo                   devices. Examples of filter feeders are clams
             cell division every.20 minutes under the most op-             and barnacles; while worms, fish, and crabs that
                                                                           consume benthic detritus are considered deposit
             timum conditions and their biomass may in-                    feeders.
             crease 5 - 6 times in 24 hours (Zhukova, 1963).
             Some bacteria are adapted to live below the sur-                   In summary, decomposers unlock the or-
             face of the sediments,where oxygen is absent.                 ganic food source found in dead plants and
             Much of the decomposition, production, and                    animals by breaking them down into detritus, a
             nutrient recycling by bacteria is accomplished in             readily utilizable food source. By colonizing'the
             the oxygen poor environment below surface sedi-               dead material they also provide an additional
             ments.                                                        highly nutritious food source. Microbes create
                                                                           detritus and provid6 an integral detrital food
                                                                           component as well. They further provide a criti-








                                                                                                                                    7


             cal link in nutrient cycling through remineraliza-              ing wetland legislation, informing neighbors and
             tion of organic material.                                       developers of the values of intertidal flats, and
                                                                             encouraging them to minimize their impact on
             Regulation of Intertidal Flats                                  wetlands.
                  In 1982 the Virginia General Assembly                      Suggested Reading
             amended the Wetlands Act of 1972 to include
             regulation of the intertidal mud and sand flats,                      For a description of the types of animals
             or nonvegetated wetlands. These areas are                       that feed on the algae and bacteria of intertidal
             defined as those coastal environments that occur                mud and sand flats see the Wetlands Program
             between mean low water and mean high water.                     Technical Report No. 90-1.
             The Virginia Marine Resources Commission                              The Marine Algae of Virginia, by H. J.
             (VMRC) was given the responsibility as lead                     Humm, presents a description of the cyanobac-
             state agency. Under the Aces local option alter-                teria and the macroalgae identified in Virginia.
             native most localities have adopted the model or-
             dinance and administer wetlands management
             through local wetlands boards and ordinances.                   Literature Cited
             Federal wetland regulation under the Clean
             Water Act is administered by the U.S. Army                      Bott, T. L. 1976. Nutrient Cycles in Natural
             Corps of Engineers (Corps) and overseen by the                        Systems: Microbial Involvement. In:
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).                           Biological Control of Water Pollution. J.
             The Corps and the VMRC have developed a joint                         Tourbier and R.W. Pierson, Jr. (eds.) Univ.
             permit application that is used by the local,                         of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 41-52.
             state, and federal regulatory authorities to
             streamline the permit process. The Common-                      Diaz, R.J. (ed.), R.J. Orth, G. Markwith, W.
             wealth has compiled a set of Wetland Guidelines                       Rizzo, R. Wetzel, and K Storey. 1982. Ex-
             which describe tidal wetland types, their values,                     amination of Tidal Flats: Vol. 2, A Review
             and methods of coastal construction that mini-                        of Identified Values. U.S. Department of
             mize wetland impacts. These guidelines can be                         Transportation, 47 pp.
             used to assist applicants when filling out the                  Eppley, R.  ,W. 1977. The growth and culture of
             joint permit application. Other state and federal                     diatoms. In: The Biology of Diatoms, D.
             agencies that may comment on tidal wetland ap-                        Werner (ed.), Oxford, U.K: Blackwell
             plications during the joint permit review include:                    Scientific Publications. pp. 24-64.
             the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
             Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protec-                 Gallagher, J.L. and F.C. Daiber. 1974. Primary
             tion Agency, Council on the Environment, the                          production of edaphic algal communities in
             State Department of Health, State Water Con-                          a Delaware salt marsh. Limnol. Oceanogr.
             trol Board, Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service,                       19: 310-395.
             and Virginia Department of Game and Inland                      Humm, H. J. 1979. The Marine Algae of Vir-
             Fisheries.                                                            ginia. The University Press of Virginia,
                   Intertidal flats are still being lost at a sig-                 263 pp.
             nificant rate. The majority of tidal wetlands per-              Levinton, Jeffrey S. 1982. Marine Ecology.
             mitted to be impacted in"Virginia have been                           Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
             intertidal flats; 79 percent in 1988 and 73 per-                      Jersey, 526 pp.
             cent in 1989 (Havens, personal communication).
                                                                             Lippson, A. J., M.S. Haire, A.F. Holland, F.
                   Concerned citizens can assist in wetland                        Jacobs, J. Jensen, R.L. Moran-Johnsion,
             protection through various activities by: attend-                     T.T. Polgar, and W.A_ Richkus. 1979.
   qP        ing Wetlands Board public hearings, locating                          Phytoplankton and Other Algae. In: En-
             and monitoring wetlands in their area, support-                       vironmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary-.






             8



                  Cambridge University, New York, NY, pp.             Patrick, R. 1976. The Role of Aquatic Plants in
                  74-83.                                                    Aquatic Ecosystems. In: Biological Control
             Margulis, L., and KV. Schwartz. 1982. Five                     of Water Pollution. J. Tourbier and R.W.
                  Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the                     Pierson, Jr. (eds.) University. of Pennsyl-
                                                                            vania Press. pp. 53-59.
                  Phyla of Life on Earth. W.H. Freeman and
                  Company, San Francisco.                             Pomeroy, L.R. 1959. Algal productivity in salt
                                                                            marshes of Georgia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 4:
             Nixon, S.W., C.W. Oviatt, and S.S. Hale. 1976.                 386-397.
                  Nitrogen regeneration and the metabolism
                  of coastal marine bottom communities. In:           Theberge, L., and D.F. Boesch. 1978. Values
                  The Role of Terrestrial and Aquatic Or-                   And Management Strategies For Non-
                  ganisms in Decomposition Processes, J.M.                  vegetated Tidal Wetlands. 55 pp.
                  Anderson and A. MacFadyen (eds.), Oxford,           Valiela, L 1984. Marine Ecological Processes.
                  U.K: Blackwell Scientific Publications.                   Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 546 pp.
                  pp. 269-283.
             Parsons, T.R., M. Takahashi, and B. Hargrove.            Zhukova, A.I. 1.963. On the  .quantitative sig-
                  1984. Biological Oceanographic Processes,                 nificance of microorganisms in nutrition of
                  Third Edition. Pergamon Press, New York,                  aquatic invertebrates. In: Marine
                  NY, 330 pp.                                               microbiology. C.H. Oppenheimer (ed.). C.C.
                                                                            Thomas Publisher, Illinois. pp. 699-710.











                                  Technical                                                            NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION
                                                                                                          U.S. POSTAGE PAID
                                  Repoft                                                                  GLOU. PT.. VA 23062
                                                                                                             PERMIT06
               College of Wiffiarn and Mary
               Virginia InsfiMe of Marine Science
               School of Marine Science
               Gimicoster Point, Virginia 23062 U SA


0





                                                                                     Nontidal Wetland Functions
                                                       Program                               And Values


                                                                                         Maryann Woh1gemuth

                                         August 1991  No. 91-A
                                                             

                                                      
                                            
                                                    

                         
                                                                                     Introduction

                                                                                          Approximately 750,000 acres or 85% of Virginia's wetlands are
                           Technical                                                 nontidal (Odum, 1988). Nontidal wetlands include marshes,
                           Report                                                    swamps, bogs, and low-lying areas along the margins of rivers,
                                                                                     streams and lakes. They can also be found in isolated upland
                                                                                     depressions or areas where the water table stays near the land sur-
                                                                                     face (Figure 1). They are characterized by wet soils and by plants
                                                                                     that are adapted to grow in the wet conditions. Vegetation found
                           Special Edition                                           in nontidal wetlands may include grasses, herbaceous plants (non-
                                                                                     woody), shrubs, and trees. They are not influenced by daily tides
                           College of William and Mary
                           Virginia institute of Marine Science
                           School of Marine Science
                           Wetlands Program
                           Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062                          like tidal wetlands. Nontidal and tidal wetlands share many of the
                                             
                                                                                     same values and both are important in maintaining the health of
                           Dr Carl Hershner, Program Director                     
                           Kirk J Havens, Editor                                                          the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources.
                           Harold Burrell, Artwork
                           Janet Walker, Typography                                
                                                                                     Nontidal Wetland Types
                                
                                          
                           
                         
                         
                                                                                          Forested, palustrine emergent, and lacustrine are the most
                                           
                                            
                           
                           Commonwealth's                                                             prevalent types of nontidal wetlands in Virginia (Odum, 1988).
   				   Declared Policy:									        Forested wetlands are the most extensive including bottomland                      
                                                      				        hardwood forests, riparian wetlands, and bottomlnad hardwood
                           "to preserve the                           				        swamps.  Forested wetlands can occur as broad flood plains along                                                   
                           wetlands and to                   							  rivers, as fringes along streams, or in upland depressions.  Trees
                           prevent their      								        common to forested wetlands in Virginia include red maple, green
                           despoliation and                                                           ash, black gum, sweet gum, American elm, river birch, black wil-
				   destruction..."										  low, loblolly pine and alder (Odum, 1988).  Palustrine emergent 
                                                                                      wetlands occupy depressions, ditches or streeam banks and are char-
                                                                                      acterized by emergent herbaceus plants such as sedges, rushes,
                                                                                      and grasses.  Cattails are a familiar plant found in these wetlands.
                                                                               	  Lacustrine wetlands are found along shorelines of lakes and are
                                                                                      identified by grasses, sedges, rushes, shrubs, and trees.  Other non-
                                                                              	  tidal wetlands in Virginia include scrub-shrub wetlands, bogs, fens,
													        and interdune swale wetlands (Odum, 1
                                                                                     swamps. Forested wetlands can occur as broad flood plains along
                                                                                     rivers, as fringes along streams, or in upland depressions. Trees
                                                                                     common to forested wetlands in Virginia include red maple, green
                           Commonwealth's                                            ash, black gum, sweet gum, American elm, river birch, black wil-
                           Declared Policy.                                          low, loblolly pine and alder (Odum, 1988). Palustrine emergent
                                                                                     wetlands occupy depressions, ditches or stream banks and are char-
                           "'to preserve the                                         acterized by emergent herbaceous plants such as sedges, rushes,
                                                                                     and grasses. Cattails are a familiar plant found in these wetlands.
                           wetlands and to                                           Lacustrine wetlands are found along shorelines of lakes and are
                           prevent their                                             identified bay grasses, sedges, rushes, shrubs, and trees. Other non-
                           despoliation and                                          tidal wetlands in Virginia include scrub-shrub wetlands, bogs, fens,
                           destruction. .                                            and interdune swale wetlands (Odum, 1988).

                                                                                     Wetland Values

                           This report was funded, in part, by                             Ecological processes are usually described by function, such as
                           the Virginia Council on the
                           Environment's Coastal Resources                           wildlife habitat support. The further classification of a function by
                           Management Program through                                its value connotes usefulness to humans. The location of the wet-
                           grant# NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the                              land, the human population pressures on it, or the extent of the
                           National Oceanic and Atmos-                               wetland may indicate the value of a functional ecologic process
                           pheric Administration.                                    (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). For example, wildlife habitat may.
                                                                                     be important to humans because it provides wildlife for hunting, or

                                                                                                                                                                              (continued)
                           Printed on recycled paper.
 






           2


           Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing wetlands, deepwater habitats, and uplands on landscape. Note
           differences in wetlands due to hydrology and topographic location (adapted from. Tiner, 1984).



                                                                                                   UPLAND         UPLAND

                                                                                       UPLAND
                                                                   N


                 k




                     UPLAND                  UPLAND
                                High Water
                                                                                                               ...................
                                 ------                                    High Water                         Water table
                 ...... ......M.... . ... .ow Wai7er ............... . ....
                Water table                                                               ........
                                               Water table
                                                                        Low Water                  Stream Groundwater
                                                                                                           Discharge
                                                                6,6 Ft.
                                                                         River





                                   V     ____J                 V
                           Depressional Welland              Overflow Deepwater Overflow       seepage Welland on Slope
                                                             Welland    Habitat Welland





           nature study. Wetlands provide many ecological               be defined as all the area that drains by surface
           and socio-ecoriomic benefits including water                 or subsurface flow into the water body being con-
           quality improvement, stormwater treatment,                   sidered (Figure 3). Th  e Chesapeake Bay water-
           food sources, fish and wildlife habitat, shoreline           shed extends north through parts of New York
           erosion control, flood protection, potable water             State and west to the Appalachian mountains
           supplies, economic resources such as-timber,. and            covering approximately 64,*000 square miles
           recreation. Wetlands have traditionally been                 (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1983). Any sub-
           considered unproductive wastelands, which has                stance that is added to the land orthe waters
           lead to their elimination by artificial draining or          within this area has the potential to impact the
           filling. This view has changed significantly as              water quality and ecology of the Bay system.
           the connection between wetlands, wildlife, water             For example, agricultural or lawn fertilizers ap-
           quality, and other ecological and economic        -  I  I    plied in western Virginia or New York have the
           values have been studied. Hunters, fishermen,                potential to impact the Bay either through sur-
           trappers, and loggers,have always benefited                  face flow or groundwater flow (Figure 3). Non-
           from the abundant supply of imimmals,, fish,                 tidal wetlands throughout this watershed have
           waterfowl, and lumber.                                       the potential to improve or m  aintain many
                                                                        ecological values in waters flowing toward the
           Nontidal Wetland Values to the                               Bay, especially water quality,
           Chesapeake Bay                                                   Nontidal wetland's are diverse and cover a
                                                                        wide range of habitats. Because they do not all
               In considering the values of nontidal wet-               provide the same values or functions, generally
           lands, it is important to understand the coupling            it is difficult to determine the functions a wet-
           of wetlands with adjacent ecosystems, such as                land provides without site specific analysis.
           streams, rivers, lakes, bays, uplands, and                   Variables to consider in assessing the functional
           floodplains. Of particular concern is the func-              values of a wetland may include: wetland type,
           tion Virginia@s nontidal wetlands may play in                soil characteristics, hydrology, size, and sur-
           protecting the water quality of the Chesapeake               rounding upland land, use. This report gives an
           Bay. The entire Bay watershed should be con-                 overview of nontidal wetland functions and
           sidered in evaluating the cumulative function of             values.
           nontidal wetlands (Figure 2). A watershed can








                                                                                                                                   3


                  Water Quality                                                output of nutrients is less than the net input.
                                                                               Most wetlands are at least seasonal sinks for
                     Located at the interface between terrestrial              nutrients, taking them up during the growing
                  and aquatic systems, wetlands often intercept                season. A review by Van der Valk et a]. (1979) of
                  pollutants and nutrients in upland runoff before             17 studies showed that freshwater wetlands
                  they reach an adjacent waterway (Figure 4).                  trapped nutrients during the growing season.
                  Substances that can affect water quality include             This wetland function can be very important in
                  nutrients, dissolved gases, heavy metals, pes-               managing urban and agricultural runoff with
                  ticides, pathogens, and industrial wastes. The               high concentrations of nutrients which may
                  nutrients of most importance in wetland and                  degrade downstream water quality. Even a
                  aquatic systems are nitrogen and phosphorous.                slight increase in the amount of wetlands in an
                  In excessive quantities, they can cause nuisance             agricultural watershed reduced the amount of
                  algal blooms and subsequent low oxygen levels;               nitrogen leaving the watershed (Jones et al.,
                  however, they are essential for growth of wet-               1976).
                  land plants. Dissolved oxygen is produced by                     Plants may also take up heavy metals, and
                  plants and is necessary for aquatic animals to               other chemical pollutants andincorporate them
                  survive. The processes occurring in wetland sys-             into their leaves, roots, and stems (Kadlec and
                  tems that impact water quality
                  are plant uptake and cycling, fil-
                  tering, sedimentation, reduction
                  in shoreline erosion, soil adsorp-        Figure 2. Chesapeake Bay watershed and major drainage basins
                  tion, and soil microbial activity.        (adapted from Chesapeake Bay Program, 1983).

                  Nutrient Uptake and
                  Cycling

                     As wetland plants grow and
                  die, they take up inorganic
                  nutrients (nitrogen, phos-                                            N.Y
                  phorous) and release organic
                  or detrital forms (decaying
                  plant material) of nutrients.
                  The result is a valuable cycling
                  and transformation of nutrients
                  in the ecosystem. The transfor-
                  mation from inorganic to or-
                  ganic forms of nutrients reduces
                  potential problems from exces-
                  sive nutrient loadings, while                                PA.
                  providing organic forms of
                  nutrients that are more useful
                  to aquatic animals (Figure 5).
                  Excessive nutrients may come                       MD.                                 3
                  from septic system leakage,
                  sewage effluent, runoff from fer-
                  tilized lawns and farms, and                      W.VA.                   Fall Line
                  stormwater outflows. The or-                                                          4
                  ganic forms of nutrients provide                                        6                              DEL.-
                  the base of the detrital food                   VA.
                  web, which may support many
                  commercially important fish,                                                7
                  crabs, and shellfish (Elder,
                  1985). A food web is the set of
                  complex feeding interactions                                        8
                  that occur in an ecosystem.
                      Some wetlands function as
                  nutrient sinks in which the net








           4









                                                             ......  topographic
                                                                  divide
                evopo transpiration             precipitation
                                    interception
                                                                                          Figure 3.  The riverine
                                                    depression                            hydrologic cycle, note
                                                     storage                              the subsurface flows
                                        
                                      or Ik                                               (adapted from Clark,
                                                                                          1983).








           Kadlec, 1979; Boto and Patrick,. 1979). As the              lands located in depressions may retain all the
           plant dies, the pollutants may be buried and                sediment entering them (Novitzki, 1979). This
           removed from the system or returned to the                  is valuable in reducing siltation in downstream
                                                                                                              
           water column. If the plant is consumed by an                areas such as fish spawning areas and ship chan-
           animal the pollutants may be passed up the food             nels.
           web.                                                            As sediments are removed from the water
                                                                        column, so are attached nutrients; heavy metals,
           Wetland Soil Processes                                       and other toxins. Mitsch et al. (1979) found that
                                                                        large amounts of phosphorous were deposited
               Wetland soils have been shown to be more
           important at removing nutrients from the over-
                                                                   Nontidal Wetland Values
           lying water than plant uptake. Sather et al.
           (1990) states that chemical adsorption by
           detritus and precipitation appear to remove             ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY VALUES
           more phosphorus than plant uptake. Bcacteria              Water Quality Improvement
           at the water sediment interface remove sig-                 Pollutant removal (heavy metals, pathogens)
                                                                       Sediment trapping
           nificant amounts of nitrogen from the water
           column (Sather et al., 1990). Soil microbes                 Nutrient uptake and recycling
           such as bacteria are also important in degrad-              Oxygen production.
                                                                       Wastewater treatment
           ing pesticides, resulting in reduced potential
                                                                       Stormwater treatment
           risk even if the soils are disturbed (Boto and
           Patrick 1979).
                                                                     Aquatic and Terrestrial Productivity
           Filtering and Sedimentation
                                                                     Fish and Wildlife Habitat
               Wetlands are sites of increased sedimenta-              Spawning and nesting sites
           tion, which improves water quality by reducing              Nursery areas for Young
           suspended solids and increases bank stabiliza-              Shelter from predators
           tion through the accumulation of sediment. As               Foraging areas
           overlying waters pass across wetlands, water
           velocities are slowed by the increased friction        SOCIO-ECONOMIC VALUES
           between the water and the sediment interface                  Shoreline Erosion Control
           and the presence of vegetation. As the water is               Flood Protection
           slowed, suspended particles fall out, reducing                Groundwater recharge and discharge
           turbidity and improving water quality.                        Natural products (timber, fish, waterfowl)
           Riparian areas have been shown to retain 80                   Recreation (boating, fishing, hunting)
           percent of sediment runoff from adjacent                      Aesthetics
           agricultural lands (Richardson, 1989). Wet-        
 






                                                                                                                                        5




                                                 WETLANDS PURIFY WATER

                                                                                                 Sediment trapped by vegetation
                     Figure 4. Wetlands
                    help purify water by
                             filtering out
                       nutrients, wastes,       Sediment and Nutrient-
                     and sediment from          laden Stream
                       runoff and floods                                                                        Nutrients absorbed
                     (adapted from Kus-
                               ler, 1983).








                                                                                                                          . . . . . . ....




                 with river sediments during river flooding in a                  Stormwater Management
                 swamp. Most wetland sediments accumulate
                 faster than they are removed. This accumula-                         Stormwater runoff is becoming widely recog-
                 tion rate allows the wetland to retain a sig-                    nized as a significant contributor to water pollu-
                 nificant portion of the nutrients and other                      tion problems. Stormwater runoff may contain
                 pollutants buried in the soil (Sather et al., 1990).             many pollutants, among them are fuel and
                 Heavy metals and other toxic substances at-                      chemical spillage, lawn fertilizers and her-
                 tached to sediment particles will become im-                     bicides, vehicle drippings (oil, gas, antifreeze),
                 mobile through burial in sediments until they                    sediment from erosion or construction activities,
                 become disturbed through dredging or lowering                    and sewage from failing systems. Urban areas
                 of the water table (Boto and Patrick, 1979).                     are beginning to implement natural methods of
                                                                                  reducing these pollutant loads, including
                 Wastewater Mreatment                                             vegetated drainage ways and detention basins
                                                                                  with their associated wetland border. The
                     Some wetlands are so successful at removing                  Commonwealth's Best Management Practices
                 nutrients that they have been utilized in treat-                 (BMP) Manual for urban areas suggests using
                 ing wastewater. Freshwater wetlands filter 60 -                  wetlands for natural biological treatment of
                 90 percent of the suspended solids from was-                     stormwater (Virginia State Water Control
                 tewater addition studies (Richardson, 1989).                     Board, 1979b). Directing stormwater runoff
                 Boyt et al. (1976) studied a hardwood swamp                      through a wetland can be considered a filtering
                 that had been receiving sewage effluent for 20                   process analogous to running dirty water
                 years and reported a 98 percent reduction in                     through a coffee filter. The filtering process is
                 phosphorous and 90 percent reduction in                          accompanied by complex biological and chemical
                 nitrogen in the outflow waters. Coliform bac-                    reactions that occur in the wetland, resulting in
                 teria may also show significant reductions in                    significant reductions in total pollutants.
                 sewage effluent after passing through a wetland                      In summary, establishment or maintenance
                 (Spangler et al., 1976). Colifornts are an in-                   of wetland buffer zones may significantly im-.
                 dicator of human fecal matter which may con-                     prove water quality in the adjacent and
                 tain pathogens. However, some studies have                       downstream water bodies. Wetlands can im-
                 questioned the ability of a wetland to remove                    prove water quality by five mechanisms: 1)
                 pathogenic microorganisms (Bender and Correll,                   plant nutrient uptake and cycling, 2) chemical
                 1974) and have shown that some wastewater                        adsorption and precipitation, 3) bacterial proces-
                 heavy metals that are incorporated in plant tis-                 ses, 4) sedimentation, 5) reduction in shoreline
                 sue can be passed up the food web (Windom,                       erosion (discussed later in this paper).
                 1976; Roman, 198 1).







          6



                                                                 Figure 5. Simplified diagram of nutrient cycling and
                                                                 transformations in a wetland.






                                               Marsh             Decay
                            Uptake             Plants
                                                                                               Organic               Animals
                                                                                              nutrients
                           I                                     Decaying                   detritus (with
                            norganic                             Plant                        associated
                            u   ent
                                   s                             Matena
                                                                                           bacteria, fungi)





                                           i B.act6rial.
                                           Decomposition


          Primary Production                                             microbes increase the nutritional content of the
                                                                         plant material, resulting in a highly nutritious
              Wetland productivity provides the source of                and readily available food source for many
          many wetland functions, including nutrient recy-               aquatic organisms including fish, crabs,
          cling, fish and wildlife food and habitat, and food            shellfish, and zooplankton (microscopic
          web support. All life is ultimately dependent on               animals). The fungi and bacteria in swamps
          the photosynthetic production of plant material                produce vitamin B12, which is necessary for
          by primary producers. Primary producers in-                    aquatic invertebrates and fish growth
          clude grasses, shrubs, trees, macro-algae, and                 (Burkholder, 1956). Floodplain swamp forests
          floating microscopic plants (phytoplankton).                   are among the most productive ecosystems due
          Photosynthetic production of organic matter                    to periodic flooding that supplies organic matter,
          converts the sun's energy into a form which can                water, nutrients, and clay (Bates, 1989).
          be used by living organisms. In this process,
          nutrients and carbon dioxide are taken up and                  Fish and Wildlife Habitat
          oxygen is released. Wetland plants produce
          more plant material than some of our most                          Nontidal wetlands provide food and habitat
          productive cultivated farm fields (Figure 6).                  for many terrestrial and aquatic animals includ-
          Numerous wetland plant adaptations allow for                   ing fish, birds, mammals, and invertebrates (Fig-
          maximum growth rates that are less common or                   ure 7). Among the most valued food items in
          impossible for terrestrial plants, which may be                wetlands are plant leaves, detritus, tubers,
          water or nutrient limited (Wetzel, 1989). Water-               seeds, snails, clams, worms, frogs, and insects.
          sheds which drain wetland regions export more                  Mitsch and Gosselink (1986) reported that vir-
          organic material than do watersheds that do not                tually all of the freshwater fish and shellfish are
          have wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986).                    partially dependent on wetlands. Freshwater
          Wetzel (1989) compared the productivity rates                  fish depend on wetlands for food, nursery           -
          across a wetland gradient beginning on the                     grounds, and spawning. Almost all recreational
          uplands and moving into the open water. He                     fishes spawn in the aquatic portions of wetlands,
          reported that the photosynthetic production of or-             often spawning in marshes bordering lakes or in
          ganic matter was greatest in the wetland area.                 riparian forests during flooding (Peters et al.,
          The upland forest and plants produced less than                1979, Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). Common
          half the amount of organic matter that the wet-                fish that utilize freshwater wetlands include
          land produced. A portion of this production in                 pickerel, sunfishes, bass, crappies, bullheads,
          wetlands is directly consumed by mammals,                      carp, herring, white perch and American shad.
          birds, and insects. The most significant portion               Several anadromous fish (those which migrate
          is consumed as detritus which is decaying plant                from saltwater to freshwater to spawn) spawn in
          material that is colonized by microorganisms                   wetlands of the freshwater portions of rivers.
          (bacteria, protozoa, and fungi). The attached                  For example, the blueback herring spawns on







                                                                                                                                7


               the hardwood forest floor during flooding                     Bottomland forested wetlands are primary
               (Adams, 1970), and the American shad spawns                   wintering grounds for waterfowl, as well as im-
               in freshwater streams (Tiner, 1985). Bottom-                  portant breeding areas for wood ducks, herons,
               land hardwoods of the southeastern U.S. are im-               egrets, and wild turkeys (Tiner, 1984).
               portant to fish that use them for spawning,                       Muskrats, beavers, rabbits, river otters, rac-
               feeding, and hiding (Sather et al., 1990). Es-                coons, mice, and white-tailed deer are among the
               tuarine and marine fish and crabs have been                   furbearers utilizing nontidal wetlands.
               reported to migrate into freshwater wetlands for              Muskrats may feed on plant parts including
               food, spawning, and nursery areas (Conner and                 belowground tubers; they may also feed on inver-
               Day, 1982).                                                   tebrates found in wetlands such as clams and
                   Wetlands provide a critical habitat for many              mussels. Muskrat lodges are often made of tall
               birds including waterfowl, migratory songbirds,               robust plants such as cattails. White-tailed deer
               and shorebirds. Some species may utilize wet-                 depend on wetlands for winter shelter, food,
               lands year round while others use them seasonal-              cover and breeding (Tiner, 1985).


                           Figure& Net primary productivity of selected ecosystems (g/m        21year) (adapted from
                           Lieth, 1975 and Teal and Teal, 1969).




                                                                                     M T
                                                                             AJ      MARSH


                    2000                                        TROPICAL  FRESHWATER-
                                                                RAIN      WETLAND
                                                                FOREST










                     low                            COLD                                        WAM
                                                    DECIOUOUS                                   TEMPERATE
                                                    FORIEST                                     MIXED
                                                                                                FOREST

                                                                                                          CULTIVATED
                                                                                                          LAND       GRASSLAND

                     Sao                 DORSAL
                                         FOREST





               ly for breeding, feeding, resting, or overwinter-                 Another major component in wetland
               ing. Wetland nesting birds include redwinged                  wildlife populations are the reptiles (turtles,
               blackbirds, green herons, least bitterns, mal-                snakes) and amphibians (frogs, salamanders).
               lards, black ducks, wood ducks, and Virginia                  Almost all amphibians depend on wetlands for
               rails (Tiner, 1985). Other birds utilizing non-               breeding. They lay eggs in water where their
               tidal wetlands may include towhees, chickadees,               larvae develop and feed on algae as well as other
               titmouses, warblers, tanagers, vireos,                        foods (Weller, 1979). Frogs often found in wet-
               flycatchers, and sparrows (Tiner, 1985).                      lands include green, bull, and leopard frogs, and
               Predaceous birds such as hawks, bald eagles,                  spring peepers (Tiner, 1985). Amphibians are
               ospreys, and owls also feed and nest in wetlands.             numerous in some wetlands; 1,600 salamanders
               Wetland seeds and tubers provide essential                    and 3,800 frogs and toads were found in a gum
               winter food for ducks and geese (Weller, 1979).               tree pond less than 100 feet wide in Georgia







          8










                              ASH


                               ORIOLE


                                                                SWALLOW




                                                 RED - WINGED
                                    ALDER
                                                    BLACKBIRD                                RING
                                                 CATTAIL       PAINTED                     NECKED
                                                               TURTLE      MUSKRAT           DUCK      WOOD
                           FROG SEDGE                     LILY                            t             DUCK
                                         FIR                                               MALLARD                 LILY
                                           UM                                                NAPPING
                                                                                        14!@TIJRTLE
                                                  AQUATIC                                                     SUNFISH
                                                VEGETATION


          Figure 7. Simplified diagram Of the plants and animals of a nontidal wetland and adjacent aquatic
          habitat.


          (Wharton, 1978). Amphibians are a prime food                       aeroplane that make it a suitable
          source for larger animals such as raccoons,                        vehicle for human beings. But ecosys-
          herons, mink, bitterns, and fish (Weller, 1981).                   tems are much more complex than
          Turtles and snakes use freshwater wetlands for                     wings or engines. Ecosystems, like
          food and cover and move to drier land to deposit                   well-made aeroplanes, tend to have
          eggs. Turtles are most common in freshwater                        redundant subsystems and other
          marshes and ponds, the most common being box,                      'design' features that permit them to
          snapping, painted, pond, and mud turtles                           continue functioning after absorbing a
          (Clark, 1979). Water snakes are the most abun-                     certain amount of abuse. A dozen
          dant snake in wetlands, though cottonmouths,                       rivets, or a dozen species, might never
          garter, and mud snakes are also found.                             be missed. On the other hand, a thir-
              Wetlands are also important in maintaining                     teenth rivet popped from a wing flap,
          species diversity which is critical to ecosystem                   or the extinction of a key species in-
          balance. Diversity is a measure of the variety of                  volved in the cycling of nitrogen, could
          species present in an ecosystem. High species                      lead to a serious accident7.
          diversity provides resilience to potentially
          catastrophic events such as disease or environ-                  For the survival of many fish and wildlife, it
          mental disturbance. Of.the nation's endangered               is critical to preserve not only the wetland
          and threatened species, 50 percent of the                    habitat in which the species is most common,
          animals and 28 percent of the plants are depend-             but also a portion of the adjacent areas. Maxi-
          ent on wetlands for their survival (Niering,                 mum wildlife usage may be dependent on preser-
          1988). Preservation of wetland plants is also im-            vation of upland buffer areas adjacent to
          portant for maintaining direct potential benefits            wetlands (Adamus, 1990). Certain species are
          in the fields of agriculture and medicine (Nier-             dependent on adjacent upland or aquatic areas
          ing, 1988). As Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981, in                 for some part of their life history such as breed-
          Niering, 1988) state:                                        ing, feeding, protection, or raising young. For ex-
                                                                       ample, trees and shrubs along a wetland edge
               "The natural ecological systems of                      make valuable nesting sites, song perches, and
               Earth, which supply these vital ser-                    cover for birds. The upland adjacent to a wet-
               vices, are analogous to the parts of an                 land may be favored by wildlife for feeding, den-







                                                                                                                                9


               ning, nesting, cover, roosting, or breeding                  basins without wetlands (Novitzki, 1979). The
               (Porter, 198 1). Upland buffers in urban areas               U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found that protec-
               may provide the necessary shield and conceal-                tion of natural wetland systems along the Char-
               ment from human activities to allow for wildlife             les River basin in Massachusetts was the most
               usage (Porter, 1981). The combination of the                 cost-effective solution to controlling flood waters
               wetland and upland fringe provides an abun-                  (U.S. Army Corps, 1972; Carter et al., 1979).
               dance of food close to good cover.                           Wetlands are able to store or remove water
                                                                            through several mechanisms, which include:
               Shoreline Erosion Control                                    maximum water storage resulting from soil
                                                                            properties specific to wetlands, plant uptake and
                  Wetlands located at the interface between                 evapotranspiration, and open water surface
               upland and aquatic habitats have the potential               evaporation (Carter et al., 1979). The
               to reduce upland erosion. As water moves across              predominantly organic soils of wetlands have bet-
               the reduced slope of shallow waters and wet-                 ter water retention capabilities than mineral
               lands, the energy dissipates. As friction or drag            soils (Novitzki, 1979). Plant evapotranspiration
               from the bottom increases the erosive force                  is the loss of water vapor by plant parts. Flood
               declines. This action occurs in nonvegetated as              storage may be reduced when soils are already
               well as vegetated wetlands. Vegetated wetlands               saturated or in winter when plant uptake is
               can reduce shoreline erosion by several                      lower (Carter et al., 1979). The increased fric-
               mechanisms. The complex root system binds                    tion caused by contact with wetland vegetation
               and stabilizes the sediment; as a wave                       and roughness of the ground reduce flood cur-
               propagates through vegetation additional fric-               rent velocities. Mitsch et al., (1979) observed
               tional drag reduces wave energy and current                  floodwaters being slowly returned to the river
               velocity (Dean, 1979). Wetland vegetation also               from a swamp months after maximum runoff oc-
               increases deposition of sediment which helps                 curred. This action results in reduced flood
               build the shoreline channelward of the uplands.              water heights because water levels have sub-
               Bulrushes and reed grass have been reported as               sided in the river channel as these floodwaters
               the most successful herbaceous vegetation in                 are slowly released. Flood control has become in-
               erosion abatement (Seibert, 1968; Kadlec and                 creasingly important in urban areas where the
               Wentz, 1974). Trees stabilize banks of streams               rate and volume of stormwater runoff have in-
               and rivers with their deep penetrating roots                 creased with nonporous surfaces, such as roads,
               (Siebert, 1968; Virginia State Water Control                 parking lots, and buildings.
               Board, 1979a). Shoreline erosion
               control with vegetation has its
               limitations depending on many
               factors such as: potential wave
               energies, current velocities, flood
               magnitude, vegetation type, soil                   RAINSTORM
               type, and slope.

               Flood Storage                                        1,1,111Y11111111 4- Higher flood and higher flows
                                                                                                  Lower flood crest and
                                                                                                       lower flows
                   Wetlands within drainage
               basins attenuate flood peaks and                              _j
               total stream flows by temporarily
                                                                                                                WETLANDS
               storing surface water in slope         UA
                                                                                                                             LU
               wetlands or retaining them in
                                                                                                           NO WETLANDS
               depressional wetlands (Carter et                                                                              0
                                                                                                                             0
               al., 1979; Novitzki, 1979). These
                                                      LL x.
               processes desynchronize peak
               flows by temporarily slowing and
               storing water, which results in a             TIME
               non-simultaneous, gradual
               release of peak waters, minimiz-
               ing flow downstream (Figure 8)      Figure S. Wetland value in reducing flood crests and flow rates after
               (Zacherle, 1984). Flood flows in    rainstorms (adapted from Kusler, 1983).
               watersheds with wetlands may
               be 80 percent lower than in







          10


          Groundwater Discharge and R           echarge                Property damage from floods for 1975 in the
                                                                       U.S. was estimated to be 0.4 billion (U.S. Water
              Some wetlands have been shown to be sites                Resources Council, 1978). Wetlands provide per-
          for groundwater recharge while most have been                petual values, whereas,economic benefits from
          identified as areas of groundwater discharge.                wetland destruction are finite (Mitsch and Gos-
          Groundwater recharge is the movement of                      selink, 1986).
          water into a potential drinking water supply or
          aquifer. Wetlands located at sites of.                       Wetland Losses
          groundwater discharge occur where the
          groundwater table meets the surface of the land                  Human threats to wetlands include
          and discharges as springs or seeps. Most wet-                drainage, dredging, filling, construction of
          lands are discharge areas and may be used to                 shoreline structures, groundwater withdrawal,
          -.supply drinking water. At least 60                         and impoundments. Wave reflection from
          municipalities in Massachusetts have public                  shoreline defense structures may erode an ad-
          wells in or near wetlands (Motts and Heeley,                 jacent wetland. As wetlands are lost so are their
          197 3). In riverine wetlands, groundwater                    associated benefits. The short term economic
          aquifers are recharged during floodplain inunda-             gains acquired througYwetlands destruction are
          tion (Ward, 1989). Recharge potential varies ac-             relatively easy to measure and therefore have
          cording to wetland type, 'geographic location,               received a great deal of emphasis in the past.
          season, soil type, water table location and                  However, the long terin economic and environ-
          precipitation (Tiner, 1984). May (1989) observed             mental costs of wetland destruction may well
          that the. freshwater wetlands on Hilton Head Is-             outweigh the short term gains.
          land, South Carolina are important recharge
          reservoirs for the aquifer that supplies potable             Regulation of Nontidal Wetlands
          water. Nontidal wetlands have the potential to
          impact the quantityand quality of potable water                  Presently Virginia does not have a state non-
          .supplies as recharge or discharge areas.                    tidal regulatory program. The
                                                                       Commmonwealth's Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
          Economic and Recreational Values                             tion Act includes nontidal wetlands that are con-
                                                                       nect6d by surface flow and are contiguous to
              The economic benefits of wetlands are real-              tidal wetlands or tributary streams as part of
          ized in natural products, shoreline erosion con-             Resource Protection Areas. These areas and an
          trol, stormwat@r treatnient, flood protection,               upland buffer bordering the-wetland will be sub-
          water supply, -livestock grazing, and recreation.            ject to land disturbance restrictions. The land
          Natural products include timber, fish, shellfish,.           management practices 'will be implemented by
          wa68rfowl, furbearers, peat, and wild rice. Wet-             local governments. The intent of the Act is to
          land grasses 'are also used for livestock grazing            protect water quality in the Chesapeake Bay,
          or are harvested for bay. Recreational activities            through managing lands that have the potential
          in wetlands include boating, swimming, fishing,              to impact water quality in the Bay and its
          hunting, and nature study. All of these ac-                  tributaries.
          tivitiesand products derivedfrom wetlands                       The U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers is the
          bring direct and indirect economic benefits to               lead federal agency responsible for regulation of
          the adjacent communities.                                    wetlands as described under Section 404 of the
              Economic benefits from hunting and fishing               Clean Water Act. The Corps' decisions are over-
          are significant. In 1980 -furs from muskrats                 seen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
          yielded approximately $74 million; in 1980 5.3               cy. Concerned citizens can assist in wetland
          million people spent $638 million on hunting                 protection through various activities including:
          waterfowl and other migratory birds; and in                  attending Wetlands Board public hearings, locat-
          1975 sport fishermen spent $13.1 billion to catch            ing and monitoring wetlands in their area, sup-
          wetland dependent fishes in the U.S. (Burke et               porting wetland legislation, informing neighbors
          al., 1988). In 1980, 47 percent of Americans ,               and developers of the values of wetlands, and en-
          spent $10 billion observing and photographing                couraging them to minimize their impact on wet-
          waterfowl and other wetland birds (Burke et al.,             lands. It is important for citizens to consider
          1988).                                                       that any substances such as fertilizers, auto
              The ability of wetlands to control flood                 fluids, and pesticides that are distributed or dis-
          waters reduces property damage from flooding,                posed of within the Bay watershed (Figure 2)
          and reduces costs for flood control structures.









                    may potentially impact the waters of the                                                    ogy and Management. National Institute ofEoology and Interna-
                                                                                                                tional Scientific Publications. UNESCO, Paris and Dept. of
                    Chesapeake Bay and drinking water supplies.                                                 Science and Technology, New Delhi. pp. 6"7.
                          Economic development and wetland protec-                                        Dean, R.G. 1979. Effects of'vegetation on shoreline erosional pruces-
                    tion are not mutually exclusive. Many commer-                                               sea. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Cis* (eds.) Wetland
                                                                                                                Functions and Values: The State ofOur Understanding. Amer.
                    cial activities and economic growth depend on                                               Water Resources Assoc. pp. 415-426.
                    the productivity and aesthetic values of the                                          Ehrlich, P. -and Ehrlich A. 1981. Extinction: the causes and conse-
                    Chesapeake Bay. Without wetlands and their at-                                              quences of the disappearance ofspecies. RandomHouse,New
                    tendent values, expensive alternative methods                                               York. Quoted in Neiring, W.A. Endangered, threatened and
                    would be required to prevent flooding, control                                              rare wetland plants and animals of the continental United
                    erosion, improve water quality, and provide fish                                            States.
                                                                                                          Elder,J.F. 1985. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Speciation and Flux in a
                    and wildlife habitat and recreational oppor@                                                Large Florida River-Wetland System, Water Resources Re-
                    tunities. Our wetlands resource, if properly                                                search, 21: 724-732.
                    managed, will provide these services far into the                                     Jones, J.R., B.P. Borofka, and R.W. Bachmann. 1976. Factors Affect-
                                                                                                                ing Nutrient Loads in Some Iowa Streams. Water Research 10:
                    future. We risk much more than just the wet-                                                117-122.
                    lands if we allow-their loss in favor of short term                                   Kadlec, J.A. and W.A. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-art Survey and
                    economic gain.                                                                              Evaluation of'Marsh Plant Establishment Techniques: Induced
                                                                                                                and Natural. Vol. I: Report of Research, Contract Report D-74-
                                                                                                                9, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
                    Literature Cited                                                                            Vicksburg, Mississippi.
                                                                                                          Kadlec, R.G. and J.A. Kadlec. 1979. Wetlands and water quality. In:
                    Adarns, J.G. 1970. Clupoids in the Altamaha River, Georgia. Coastal                         P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.) Wetland Func-
                          Fisheries office, Georgia Game and Fish Commission, Contribu.                         tions and Values: The State of'Our Understanding. Amer.
                          tion Series No. 20. Brunswick, GA.                                                    Water Resources Assoc. pp. 436-456.
                    Adamus, P. R., R. D. Smith, and T. Muir. 1990. manual for assess-                     Kusler, J.A. 190. Our National Wetland Heritage. A Protection
                          ment ofbotton-dand hardwood functions. EPA 600/3-90/053.                              Guidebook. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C.
                          Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer Waterways Expe-iimentSta-                               167 pp.
                          tion. Vicksburg, MS.                                                            May, J.P. 1989. Groundwater recharge potential offreshwater wet-
                    Bates, R.D. 1989. Biomass and primary productivity on an early suc-                         lands on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. In: R.R. Sharitz
                          cessional flood plain forest site. In: R.R. Sharitz and J.W. Gib-                     and JW. Gibbons (eds.) Freshwater wetlands and wildlife.
                          bons (eds.) Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. Proceedings ofa                         Proceedings of a symposium held at Charleston, South Carolina,
                          Symposium Held at Charleston, South Carolina, March 24-27,                            March 24-27,1986. U.S. Department ofEnergy. Available ftom
                          1986. U.S. DepaTtment of Energy. Available from NTIS,                                 NTIS, Springfield, VA as DE90005384.
                          Springfield, VA as DE90005384.                                                  Mitach, W.J., C.L. Dorge, and J.R. Wiemhoff. 1979. Ecosystem
                    Bender, M.E. and D.L. Correll. 1974. The use of wetlands as nutrient                        dynamics and a phosphorus budget ofan alluvial cypress swamp
                          removal systems. Chesapeake Research Consortium, No. 29,                              in southern Illinois, Ecology 60: 1116-1124.
                          VIMS Contribution No. 624. Gloucester Point, VA. 12pp.                          Mitach, W.J. and J.G. Goeselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand
                    Boto, K.G. and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1979. Role ofwetlands in the                               Reinhold Co., New York, NY. 329 pp.
                          removal ofauspended sediments. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark,                    Motts, W.S. and R.W. Heeley. 1973. Wetlands and groundwater. Im
                          and J.E. Clark (eds.) Wetland Functions and Values: The State                         J.S. Larson, ed. A Guide to Important Characteristics and
                          ofOur Understanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. pp. 479-                            Values ofFreshwater Wetlands in the Northeast. University of
                          489.                                                                                  Massachusetts, Water Resources Research Center. Pub. No. 31,
                    Boyt, F.L., S.E. Bayley, and J. Zoltek, Jr. 1976. Removal of'Nutrients                      pp. 5-8.
                          From Treated Municipal Wastewater by Wetland Vegetations. J.                    Niering, W.A. 1988. Endangered, threatened and rare wetland plants
                          Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 49: 789-799,                                                   and animals ofthe continental United States. In: D.D. Hook
                    Burke, D.G., E.J. Meyers, R.W. Tiner, Jr., and H. Groman. 1988.                             and others, eds. The Ecology and Management ofWetlands, Vol.
                          Protecting nontidal wetlands. American Planning Association.                          I Ecology of Wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. p. 227-
                          Washington D.C. 76 pp.                                                                238.
                    Burkholder, P.R. and L.M. 1956. Vitamin B12 in Suspended Solids                       Novitzki, R.P. 1979. Hydrologic characteristics ofWisconsins wet-
                          and Marsh Muds Collected Along the Coast of'Georgia, Limnol.                          lands and their influence on floods, stream flow, and sediment.
                          & Oceanogr. 1: 202-8.                                                                 In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.) Wetland
                    Carter, V., M.S. Bedinger, R.P. Novitzki and W.O. Wilen. 1979. In:                          Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Amer.
                          P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.). Wetland Func-                        Water Resources Assoc. pp. 377-388.
                          tions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Amer.                         Odurn, W.E. 1988. Nontidal freshwater wetlands in Virginia. Vir-
                          Water Resources Assoc. pp. 334-376.                                                   ginia Journal of'Natural Resources Law 7: 421-434.
                    Chesapeake Bay Program. 1983. Chesapeake Bay Program: Find-                           Peters, D.S., D.W. Ahrenholz, and T.R. Rice. 1979. Harvest and value
                          ings and Recommendations, U.S. Environmental Protection                               ofwetland associated fish and shellfish. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R.
                          Agency, Philadelphia, PA. 48 pp.                                                      Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds.) Wetland Functions and Values:
                    Clark, J.E. 1979. Fresh water wetlands: habitats for aquatic inver-                         The State ofOur Understanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc.
                          tebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R.                      pp. 606-617.
                          Clark, and J.E. Clark (edg.) Wetland Functions and Values:                      Porter, B.W. 1981. The wetland edge as a community and its value to
                          The State of Our Understanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc.                          wildlife. In: Richardson, B. ed. Selected Proceedings of the Mid-
                          pp. 330-343.                                                                          west Conference on Wetland Values and Management. Navarre,
                    Clark, J.R. 1983. Coastal Ecosystem Management, A technical                                 Minnesota: Freshwater Societ)r PP. 15-26.
                          manual for the conservation ofcoastal zone resources, Robert E.                 Richardson, C.J. 1989. Freshwater wetlands: transformers, filters, or
                          Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.                                         sinks? In: R.R. Sharitz and J.W. Gibbons (ods.) F'rwhwater wet,
                    Conner, W.H. and J.W. Day, Jr. 1982. The ecology offarested wet-                            lands and wildlife. Proceedings of a symposium held at Charles-
                          lands in the southeastern United States. In: B. Gopal, R.E.                           ton, South Carolina, March 24-27, 1986. U.S. Department of
                          Turner, R.G. Wetzel, and D.F. Whigham (eds.) Wetlands Ecol-                           Energy.. Available from NTIS as DE90005384. pp. 25-46.






                12-


                Roman, C.T. 1981. Detrital exchange processes of a Delaware salt                            standing, American Water Resources Assoc., Minneapolis,
                      marsh. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofDelaware. 144 pp.                             Minn., pp. 457-467.
                Sather, J. H., R. D. Smith, and J. S. Larson. 1990. Natural values of                 Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979a. Best Management Prac-
                      wetlands. In: Wetlands and shallow continental water bodies,                          tices Handbook, Agriculture. Planning Bulletin 316 pp.
                      Vol. 1. Natural and human relationships, B. C. Patten (ed.).                    Virginia State Water Control Board.. 1979b. Beat Management Prac-
                      SPB Academic publishing. pp. 373-388.                                                 tices Handbook, Urban. Planning Bulletin 321 pp.
                Seibert, P. 1968. Importance ofnatural vegetation for the protection                  Ward, J. V. 1989 Riverine-wetland interactions. In: R.R. Sharitz
                      ofthe banks ofstrearns, rivers, and canals. In: Nature and En-                        and J.W. G`bbona (eds.) Freshwater wetlands and wildlife.
                      vironment Series (Vol. Freshwater). Council ofEurope, pp. 35-                         Proceedings ofa symposium held at Charleston, South Carolina,
                      67.                                                                                   March 24-27, 1986. U.S. Department of Energy. Available from
                Spangler, F., W. Sloey, and C.W. Fetter. 1976. Experimental use of                          NTIS as DE90005384. pp. 385-400.
                      emergent vegetation for the biological treatment ofmunicipal                    Weller, M.W. 1981. Freshwatermarshes. UniversityofMinnesota
                      wastewater in Wiconsin. In: Biological Control ofWater Pollu-                         Preis, Minneapolis. 146 pp.
                      tion, J. Tourbier and R. Pierson, Jr. (eds.) Univ. Penn. Press,                 Weller, M.W. 1979. Wetland habitats. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark,
                      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 161-172.                                              and J.E. Clark (ads.) Welland Functions and Values: The State
                Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current                               ofOur Understanding. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. pp. 210-
                      Status and Recent Trends. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and                             234.
                      Wildlife Service.                                                               Wetzel, R.G. 1989. Wetland and littoral interfaces oflakes: produc-
                Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish and                                tivity and nutrient regulation in the Lawrence Lake ecosystem.
                      Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., pp. 117.                                           In: Proceedings ofa Symposium Held at Charleston, South
                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1972. Charles River Watershed, Mae-                           Carolina, March 24-27,1986. U.S. Department of Energy. Avail-
                      sachusetts. New England Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engra.,                          able from NTIS, Springfield, VA as DE90005384. pp. 283-302.
                      Waltham, Massachusetts, 65 pp.                                                  Wharton, C.H. 1978. The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia
                U.S. Water Resources Council. 1978. The nation's water resources,                           Dept. of Nat. Res., Atlanta. 227 pp.
                      1975-2000. vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Water Resources                       Windom, H.L. 1976. Geochermkal interactions of heavy metals. In.
                      Council.                                                                              Southeastern salt marsh environmentals, Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-
                Van der Valk, A.G., C.B. Davis, J.L. Baker, and C.E. Beer. 1979.                            600/376-023, Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
                      Natural fi-eshwater wetlands as nitrogen and phosphorus traps                   Zacherle, A.W. 1984. A method for evaluating the long-term, cumula-
                      for land runoff. In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark                         tive impacts oftidal marsh alterations: the York River system-
                      (eds.) Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Under-                          a case study. College ofWilliam and Mary, Virginia Institute of
                                                                                                            Marine Science Master's Thesis. 197 pp.








                                                 Technical
                                                 Report
                                                 Special                                                                                               NON PROFITORGANIZATION
                                                                                                                                                            U.S. POSTAGE PAID
                                                 Ediflon                                                                                                   GLOU. PT., VA 23062
                                   ProgrOm                                                                                                                      PERMIT

                   College of W1111am and Mary
                   Virginic Institute of Madne Science
                   School of Madne Science
                   Gloucester Point, Wrginia 23062 USA.






                                                                                          Wetlands Guidelines




                         MEAN LOW WATER - The average height of low waters over a nineteen year period.

                         PERENNIAL - A plant which produces new growth year after year according to the
                                seasons. In the case of nonwoody plants the aerial portion dies each winter and
                                is replaced each spring.

                         PHYSIOGRAPHIC - A description of nature or natural phenomena in general.

                         POPULATION - All of the members of one species within a community.

                         PRIMARY PRODUCTION - Biomass produced directly from sunlight by plants.

                         PRODUCTIVITY - The rate of energy storage of an ecosystem or community in the form
                                of organic substances which can be used as food materials.

                         RHIZOMES - Underground stems capable of producing new aerial shoots.

                         RIPRAP - Refers to a bulkhead or groin constructed of selected rock or concrete forms
                                carefully placed so as to dissipate wave energy (bulkhead) or collect sand (groin)
                                along a shoreline.

                         SECONDARY PRODUCTION - Biomass produced by animals grazing on plants or
                                other organic matter.

                         SHORE DEFENSE STRUCTURES - A bulkhead or groin intended to deter erosion of
                                the shoreline.


                         SPECIES DIVERSITY - Pertaining to the numbers of different species inhabiting a
                                given area, i.e. high species diversity would mean many different species in one

                                area.


                         SPOIL - The material removed from a channel bottom or other body of water during a
                                dredging operation.

                         SPRING TIDES - Higher high tides which occur twice monthly due to astronomical con-
                                ditions.


                         WRACK LINE - A line of debris, above the mean high tide line, which has been
                                deposited by previous higher than normal tides.












                                                                                                           57










 N




























N

                                                                                                                                                      !t
                                                                                                                                                   CODBE
                                                                                                                                                   M C/
                                                                                                                                                   22 -t
                                                                                                                                                   m r
                                                                                                                                                   CA @
                                                                                                                                                      i




















lo@







                                VIMS WETLANDS PROGRAM

                                               PLANT SERIES


                                                        Contents


                    90-2    Saltmarsh Cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora

                    90-4    Saltmeadow Hay, Spartina patens


                    90-6    Arrow Arum, Peltandra virginica


                    91-1    Reed Grass, Phragmites australis


                    91-3    Arrowhead, Sagittaria latifolia


                    91-5    Pickerelweed, Pontederia cordata


                    91-7    Red Maple, Acer rubrum


                    91-9    Marsh Hibiscus, Hibiscus moscheutos


                    91-11   Sweet Bay, Magnolia virginiana




                                                                          Technical Report
                                           Program                        W e t I a n d                          F I o r a

                                                                          No. 90-2 /July 1990                     Gene M. Silberhorn


             Saltmarsh Cordgrass
             Smooth Cordgrass
             Spartina alterniflora Loisel.

             Growth Habit and Diagnostic Characteristics                       states. The most extensive stands of cordgrass are found
                  Saltmarsh Cordgrass is a perennial grass that ap-            in the great barrier island marshes of South Carolina
             pears to have at least two growth forms along the Atlan-          and Georgia. Production estimates vary throughout the
             tic Coast. The robust tall form ranges from 0 .75 to over 2       distribution range because of latitude and associated
             meters (4 to 7 feet) high and is restricted to the margins        season length. In Nova Scotia, for example, production
             (levees) of tidal creeks, guts and other natural water-           rates average 600 gms/m@ whereas in Georgia, which
             ways. Shortform ranges in height from 0.10 to 0.5 meters          has a longer growing season, production rates are 1500
             (4 to 20 inches) and occupies poorly drained areas near           gms/m2 or more.
             the upper limit of the tides. A medium form is also recog-
             nized i *n some areas. Both forms have relatively smooth          Habitat
             leaves and stems (culms). The leaves of both forms are                Spartina alterniflora occupies the lower part of salt
             0.5 to 1.5 centimeters wide (0.25 to 0.75 inches) and up          and brackish marshes, between mean sea level and ap-
             to 0.5 m long. The tall form produces a long, narrow              proximately mean high water. Saltmarsh cordgrass may
             flowering head (inflorescence) in August and produces             also be a pioneer species in tidal freshwater marshes,
             seeds in September. The reproductive inflorescence is             especially after disturbance or drought-caused salinity
             made up of a series of closely appressed branchlets that          change. Dense stands are effective in buffering
             are whitish-green in flower and straw colored in seed,            shoreline erosion.
             The short form rarely becomes reproductive. Although
             the more robust form of this grass produces seeds, its            Ecological Values/Benefits
             primary means of propagation is by a massive rhizome                  Cordgrass is one of the most productive species of
             system that produces many new sprigs. Spartina alter-             tidal wetlands. Because it grows in intertidal areas,
             niflora is quite successful in spreading into previously          detritus is flushed into receiving waters were it be-
             unvegetated areas rather rapidly.                                 comes a major component of the estuarine/marine food
                                                                               web. This community is also an important habitat for
             Density and Production                                            an array of fauna, including the juvenile stages of the
                  Stem density is quite variable but usually averays           blue crab, as well as a nursery and spawning area for
             about 200 culms per square meter (20 stems per foot               commerically important finfish.
             but can range as high as 500 culms per m    2 . Annual                Dense stands are effective in buffering shoreline
             production in this region ranges from 500 to 1300 grams           erosion. The culms are incredibly flexible because of
             of dry weight per meter2, with an average rate of about           high cellulose tissue and, consequently, they are effec-
             900 grams per meter square (4 to 6 tons per acre per              tive in dampening wave energy. Dense stands also
             year). Spartina alterniflora is one of the most productive        produce an equally dense mass of rhizomes and roots
             plants of tidal wetlands. In fact, the organic matter             up to 30 cm deep which with the characteristic texture
             produced by cordgrass is comparable to the world's                of marsh peat, creates a formidable barrier to erosion.
             average production of agricultural crops such as com,
             wheat, or even sugarcane.                                         Hydrophytic Factor/Federal Delineation
                                                                                   According to the Federal Manualfor Identifying and
               @e@pro@ï¿½













             Distribution                                                      DelineatingJurisdictional Wetlands and the National List of
                  Spartina alterniflora is a common and often                  Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Virginia (1988), Spar-
             dominant plant of salt and brackish marshes along the             tina alterniflora is classified as an obligate wetland plant
             Atlantic Coast from the Canadian Maritime Provinces               (OBL). OBLs are plants that almost always occur in wet-
             to Florida and the Gulf of Mexico. Mangroves become               lands (>99% probability).
             dominant in the intertidal habitat along the southern At-
             lantic and Gulf shorelines of Florida and other Gulf






                       Spartina alterniflora Loisel.
                                                                                               fit'





























                                                                                                               f














                                                                                  W. .. . . ...... .














               College of William and Mary                                  Partial funding provided by the
               Virginia Institute of Marine Science                         Office of Coastal Resources                               Illustration by
               School of Marine Science                                     Management, NOAA.                                            Rita Llanso
               Wetlands Program
               Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

               Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director                          Prin ted on recycled paper.




                                                                    Technical Report
                                            Program                  W e t 1 a n d T I o r a

                                                                    No. 90-4 / September 1990                     Gene M. Silberhorn


             Saltmeadow Hay
             Spartina patens (Aiton) Muhl.

             Growth Habit and Diagnostic Characteristics                       areas essentially created high marsh conditions, thereby
                  This fine, wiry grass usually appears collectively as        sustaining meadow communities so they could be har-
             a densely matted meadow in the higher areas of salt               vested for fodder. During colonial times, it was com-
             and brackish marshes. It also grows on low dunes and              mon practice to graze cattle on high marshes in New
             sand flats along the coast, however, in this habitat the          England maritime states. Even in this century, hay
             growth form appears taller and clustered in distinct              stacks in these marshes were a common sight.
             tuffs. The somewhat lax plants of the marshes are from
             30'to 60 cm long (1 to 2 feet), whereas dune plants are           Habitat
             more erect and average 40 to 120 cm tall (1.5 to 4.0 feet).           Spartina patens is often associated with Distichlis
             The long tapering leaves are often rolled inward and ap-          spicata, especially near the limits of mean high water or
             pear as a cylinder. The longest leaves are nearly one-            where ponding of saline water occurs during spring
             half to two-thirds the length of the stem. The lower part         tides or storm surges. Saltmeadow hay is also common-
             of the stem is rather weak and hasa tendency to bend              ly found near the marsh/upland ecotone, usually as-
             when stressed by winds or spring tides and/or storm               sociated with woody species such as marsh elder (Iva
             surges. During these events, individual stems (culms)             frutescens), groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) and wax
             intertwine, producing the overall effect of swirls or             myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
             'cowlicks' that often occur in large, open saltmarsh                  In addition to tidal marsh habitats, S. patens also
             meadows. Sparingly branched, the inflorescence                    grows on low dunes and sand flats. Spartina patens is
             (flowering head) appears reddish-brown when in                    one of the pioneer species that invades overwash fans
             flower and dull brown in seed.                                    that form during storm events.

             Density and Production                                            Ecological Values/Benefits
                  Spartina patens often grows with another meadow                  The meadow community is an excellent buffer, fil-
             plant, salt grass (Distichlis spicata). Populations seldom        tering sediments and other wastes during periods of
             occur as pure stands. Culms of mixed samples of                   runoff. Production and available detritus are somewhat
             saltmeadow hay and salt grass raye from 500 to 1600               less important to the estuarine environment than inter-
             stems per m  2 or 50 to 150 stems/ft . Most of the detritus       tidal plant communties such as saltmarsh cordgrass.
             produced remains in the higher parts of the marsh, its            Salt and brackish meadows function as staging and
             usual habitat zone. Organic material accumulates                  feeding areas for aquatic and land mammals such as
             within matted living material, very little of it washed           muskrats and raccoons and nesting places for rails and
             out on spring tides or storm surges. Standing crop es-            other birds. This community is also the primary habitat
             timates of this community for this region range from I            for the marsh snail (Melampus bidentatus), an important
             to 3 tons of dry weight per acre per year.                        food for several species of birds.

             Distribution                                                      Hydrophytic Factor/Federal Delineation
                  Saltmeadow hay is found in the higher areas of salt              According to the Federal Manualfor Identifying and
             and brackish marshes along the coast from the                     Delineating jurisdictional Wetlands and the National List Of
             Maritime Provinces of Canada to Florida and along the             Plant species that Occur in Wetlands: Virginia (1988), Spar-
             Gulf Coast to Texas. As the name implies, it is har-              tina patens is classified as a facultative plus wetland
             vested for hay as cattle feed, although this practice is on       plant (FACW+). FACW+ plants usually occur in wet-
             the wane. In certain areas, large areas of saltmarsh were         lands (67-99% probability), but are occasionally found
             diked in order to block tidal communication. Diked                in nonwetlands (coastal dunes and sand flats).






                                     Spartina patens
                                      (Aiton) Muhl.






















                                                                                                                       @
                                                                                                                        j
                                                                                                                        J.














              College of William and Mary                                 Partial funding provided by the                           Illustration by
              Virginia Institute of Marine Science                        office of Coastal Resources
              Sckool of Marine Science                                    Management, NOAA.                                            Rita Llanso
              Wetlands Program
              Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

              Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director                         Prix ted on recycled paper.




                                                 %_                         Technical Report
                                                Program                     W e t 1 a n d                                  F I o r a

                                                                            No. 90-6 /November 1990                         Gene M. Silberhorn


               Arrow Arum
               Duck Corn

               Peltandra virginica (L.) Kunth

               Growth Habit and Diagnostic Characteristics                             Distribution
                    Peltandra virginica is a robust, emergent, fleshy                       Not necessarily a coastal plant, ar    'row arum is
               perennial found in the intertidal zone of freshwater                    found in wetland areas throughout eastern United
               marshes and swamps. The most dominant and striking                      States. In nontidal situations, it often borders lakes and
               characteristic of this plant is the large, triangular or ar-            ponds in the littoral zone and can tolerate shade in
               roWhead-like leaf blade (20 to 50 cm long and 15 to 30                  swamps and botton-dand hardwood forests.
               cm wide - 8 to 20 by 6 to 12 in). The basal lobes may be                Habitat
               half as long as the blade. The characteristic venation of
               the leaf - a prominent midrib and paired downward                            In coastal wetlands, Peltandra usually grows in the
               trending veins into the basal lobes - makes identifica-                 soft sediments of the intertidal zone (between mean sea
               tion easy in absence of flowers or fruit.                               level and mean high water) in riverine freshwater mar-
                    In late May or June, an elongated, leaf-like,                      shes and swamps. It cannot tolerate salinities much
               reproductive structure develops from the rhizome.                       above 0.5 ppt, hence it is almost always an indicator of
               The unique appendage resembles a pointed, rolled leaf                   freshwater conditions. Although arrow arum is often
               (spathe), which surrounds, in clasping fashion, a                       found in monospecific stands, it also co-dominates
               fleshy, cylindrical inflorescence (spadix). These are                   with pickerelweed, and is less commonly associated
               characteristic features of the Araceae fan-dly to which                 with arrowhead, bultongue (Sagittariafalcata), giant bul-
               this plant belongs. As fruits develop, the tip of the                   rush (Scirpus validus) and wild rice (Zizania aquatica).
               spathe decomposes, leaving a drooping, pod-like fruit-                  Ecological Values/Benefits
               ing head.                                                                    In a holistic sense, the intertidal freshwater es-
                    Peltandra may be confused with two associated                      tuarine community, of which Peltandra is a major com-
               species that often occur in the intertidal zone, namely                 ponent, as well as the entire scope of tidal freshwater
               pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) and arrowhead                         wetlands in general, are collectively very important as
               (Sagittaria latifolia). The three can be easily differen-               spawning areas for anadromous fishes. These systems,
               tiated; pickerelweed has a spike of blue flowers and                    as well as contiguous nontidal wetlands, function as
               heartshaped leaves and arrowhead has white flowers                      sinks for upland runoff which often is contaminated
               and arrowhead-like leaves, but without the three                        with excessive nutrients and other pollutants.
               predominant veins as arrow arum. Arrow arum grows                            Specifically, the fleshy seeds of Peltandra are food
               in dense clumps with leaf stalks (originating from                      for wood ducks and black ducks, hence one of the com-
               large horizontal rhizomes) that attain heights of 0.5 to                mon names, duck corn. The dark green to black seeds
               2 in (2 to over 6 ft).                                                  are buoyant and are commonly found along shorelines
               Density and Production                                                  many miles from the place of origin... even out to sea.
                    Arrow arum. is a major component of the total                      Hydrophytic Factor/Federal Delineation
               production of tidal freshwater wetlands. Production                          According to the Federal Manual for Identifying and
               estimates range from about 100 to over 1200 g (dry
               weight)/m2 or up to 5 tons/acre/annum. These es-                        Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and the National List
                                                                                       of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Virginia (1988),
               timates do not consider the belowground biomass of                      Peltandra zn'rginica is classified as an'obligate wetland
               the massive and dense rhizome. The highly foliated                      plant (OBL). 013Ls are plants that almost always occur
               stems range from 10 to 20 per M2. Peltandra is known                    in wetlands (<99% probability).
               to undergo rapid decompositon at the end of growing
               season.
                                @Pro@ï¿½





           Peltandra virginica
                  (L.) Kunth

                                                    1?z


                                                  k

                                                                     T  '4
                                                                        7@'





                                                                                                        ft

                                                   4"


                                                                                                    V
                                                71
                                                                                              A
                                                                                      t


                                                                                   b
                                                                                    @F "41
                                                                                    F

                                                                                        "'n
                                                                                              r
                                                     q!v'44

                                                      -"e NZ
                                                                         @4

                                                                              ni,
                                                                                             M
                                                                    /:ro 4;-'
                                                         mu

                                              p,

                                                                                         'K,






                                                              we
                                                                           171"@Ir@@-- "7
                                                    00C
                                          K           11
                                                                                                                  Q,

                                                                                                 AM
                                                                                    @p
                                                      -M
                                                                               6
                                                "P?r  4t4w  -'r
                                             "Al                                                    CUP-


                                                                                           -@@44


                                                                trill










            College of William and Mary                     7his report wasfunded, in part, by Me Virginia
            Virginia Institute ofMartne Science             Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources   Illustration by
            School of Marine Science                        Managenumt Program through grant#                  Rita Llanso
                                                            NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the National Oceanic and
            Wetlands Program                                Atmospheric Administration.
            Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

            Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director                     Printed on recycled pqw.




                                                                         Technical Report
                                            Program                      Wet 1 and IF ï¿½ or a

                                                                         No. 91 -1 / January 1991                  Gene M. Silberhorn


              Reed Grass
              Phragmites
              Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex. Steud.

              Growth Habit And Diagnostic Characteristics                            Reed Grass was first recorded in New England
                  Reed Grass is a tall, coarse grass with a terminal,           during colonial times. Its distribution has since ex-
              feathery seed head that is all too often an invader of            panded south and west. Along the lower Hudson
              disturbed wetlands, especially marshes. The broad,                River, the great New Jersey 'meadowlands' (a term still
              acutely tapering leaves, I to 5 centimeters (cm) wide             used today) were once dominated by Saltmeadow Hay
              (0:5 to 2 inches) and up to 50 cm long (up to 20 inches),         (Spartina patens), hence the placename. The original
              the characteristic seed head, and the very Ion& ex-               meadows were disturbed long ago by solid waste and
              posed rhizomes are typical features of this giant grass.          fill from various sources, and that which has not been
              It usually grows rapidly to heights of 2 to 4 meters (m)          developed (a football stadium, inte:rstate highways and
              or more (6 to 12 feet).                                           the like), is now overgrown wfth Phragmites.
                  The dense, but somewhat delicate reproductive                      Reed Grass was little noticed in Virginia until ap-
              panicle (flowering head), is approximately 15 to 35 cm            proximately the last 30-40 years. It is now definitely
              long (6 to 13 inches), brownish-purple in flower (late            gaining ground in the Commonwealth. Managers are
              June to August), fading to a pale straw color later in            concerned about the species because of its ability to out-
              the season. It grows in dense monospecific stands,                compete more desirable species such as Big Cordgrass
              usually outcompeting other species exclusively. Char-             (Spartina cynosuroides), Wild Rice Wzania aquatica),
              acteristically, the leaves are deciduous by late fall or          Spartina patens, and other native wetland plants.
              winter, but the naked stems and head remain until
              spring. The rhizomes, which are actually horizontal               Habitat
              stems, produce new sprigs every several inches along                   Phragmites is usually not found in undisturbed
              their length. Rhizomes often grow above ground and                high salinity marshes. It is prevalent, however, where
              can be up to 13 meters long (over 40 feet). The aggres-           such areas have been diked to contain dredged
              sive nature of this plant is attributed to the rapid              material, restricting tidal communication. This practice
              growth of these modified stems. Rhizomes originate                is no longer permitted of course. Chronic marsh fires
              from mature plants and can each produce as many as
              20 new sprigs (clones).                                           may also disturb natural marshes sufficiently to allow
                                                                                Phragmites to invade and take over as a dominant plant.
              Density and Production                                            Ecological Values/Benefits
                  Stem density ranges from 30 to 65 stems per                        Although it is not desired, Phragmites is able to
              meter2. Annual productivity ranges from 4 to 6 tons               propagate in dredged spoil areas, thereby reducing
              per acre per annum.                                               sheet erosion and enhancing aeration to the surface
                                                                                sediments.
              Distribution
                  Reed Grass is a cosmopolitan plant found nearly               Hydrophytic Factor/FederaR Delineation
              throughout the world, especially in the northern hemi-                 According to the Federal Manualfior Identiffing and
              sphere. It appears mainly in tidal and non-tidal fresh-           Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and the National List
              water wetlands. In Eastern Europe, fibers from its
              tough, thick stems are used for paper making. In Great            Of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Virginia (1988),
                                            4Pr@ot













              Britian, Phragmites marshes are the prime habitat for             Phragmites australis is classified as a facultative plus
                                                                                wetland plant (FACW+). FACW+ plants usually occur
              the marsh hawk. In its European habitats, Reed Grass              in wetlands (67-99% estimated probability), but are oc-
              is held in check by natural biological controls, and is           casionally found in nonwetlands.
              considered a valuable plant. On this side of the Atlan-
              tic, most wetland managers consider it an unwanted
              weedy invader.






                          -Ph-ragmites australis
                        (Cav.) Trin. ex. Steud.






                                                                       di









                                                                                                2-











                                                            J








                                                                                                                         M/












            Co liege of William and Mary                    77tis report was funded, in part, by the Virginia         Illustration by
            Virginia Institute of Marine Science            Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources
            ScAtool ofMarine Scieum                         Management Program through grant#                           Rita Uanso
            Wetlands Program                                NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the National Oceanic and
            Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062                AdmosphericAdministration.

            Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director             Printed on recycled paper.




                                                                             Technical Report
                                              Prograrn                       W e t 1 a n d F I o r a

                                                                             No. 91-3 /March 1991                       Gene M. Silberhorn


              Arrowhead
              Duck Potatn

              Sagittaria latifolia Willd.

              Growth Haloft and Diagnostic Chazacterisdca                           Distribution
                  Sagittaria latifolia is frequently found' in tidal fresh-              Arrowhead is widely distributed in wetland areas
              water marshes and swamps, particularly in the inter-                  throughout the eastern two thirds of the United States.
              tidal zone. It is often associated with arrow arum.
              (Peltandra virginica), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata)              Habitat
              and to a lesser extent, bultonge (Sagitteriafalcata), but it
              is seldom as abundant as arrow arum and pickerel-                          S. latifolia usually grows in the soft, muddy sedi-
              weed. Arrowhead is a fleshy emergent, gTowing from                    ments of the intertidal zone of freshwater marshes and
              45 to 90 cm (I @5 to 3.0 ft) high. A variable species, the            swamps. Arrowhead is often associated with arrow
              leaf blades range from broad (as illustrated) to very                 arum and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), although it
              slender and strap-like. Blades usually have the charac-               does not appear as abundant as the other two species.
              teristic arrowhead shape, whether broad (up to 35 cm)                 A related species, bultongue (S. falcata), can also be
              or narrow (8 cm of less). The leaf petiole and flower                 found in the same habitat. Arrowhead also grows in
              stalk (scape) come up from rhizomes beneath the sub-                  non-tidal wetlands.
              strate. The scape usually occurs associated with leaf
              dusters, but is independent of them. Rhizomes also                    Ecological Values/Benefits
              produce underground tubers that are produced at the                        In addition to the waterfowl food value of this
              ends of rhizomes, hence the common name duck                          species (tubers), the entire ecosystem is considered a
              potato. The tubers are a prime waterfowl food. They
              are also quite good for human consumption; however,                   primary spawning and nursery area for anadromous
              they are difficult to find in the mud and are seldom                  fishes. Holistically, organic matter produced by vas-
              larger than a golf ball.                                              culaT plants, phytoplankton, and benthic algae in these
               - The flowers are showy white with bright yellow                     systems serves as an energy source for a large array of
              centers (stamens or pistils) with the male or staminate               organisms, a number of which are commercially impor-
              flowers near the tern@dnus of the scape. The reproduc-                tant.
              tive structure of this plant is very similar to bultongue
              (S.fialcata), however, bultongue has lance-shaped                     Hydrophytic Factor/Federal Delineation
              leaves without the downward trending lobes. Both                           According to the Federal Manualfor Identifying and
              species produce dry fruits called achenes that are some-              Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands and the National List
              times eaten by waterfowl. Unlike arrowhead, bulton-                   of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Virginia (1988),
              gue does not produce tubers.                                          Sagittaria latifolia is classified as an obligate wetland
                  A similar plant, arrow arum (Peltandra virginica),                plant (OBLY OBLs are plants that almost always occur
              has a triangular-shaped leaf that may be confused with                in wetlands (>99% probability).
              this species, however, Peltandra does not have white
              flowers and the leaf veination is different. Arrow arum
              has three major veins, whereas arrowhead has nar-
              rower veins that Wallel the general shape of the blade.


              Density and Production
                  Annual production for S. iatifoiia rangeq from 200
              to over 1000 gram of dry weight per rnetW (1-4 tons/
               @
                       I
                       @Pro@t















              acre). There is no information in the literature regard-
              ing stem count or density.






                          Sagittaria latifolia Willd.

                                                                                      @A



















                                                                                               V


                                                                                                            Ali,



                                                                                                                @A Z"Y
                                                                                                               N,



























                                                                  M@Z






            College of William and Mary                    77tis report was funded, in part, by the Virginia          Illustration by
            Virginia Institute of Marine Science           Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources
                                                                                   I tlfe

















            School ofMarine Science                        Management Program through grant                             Rita Uanso
                                                           NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the National Oceanic and
            Wetlands Program
            GloucesterPoint, Virginia 23062                AtmosphericAdministration.

            Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director            Printed on recycled paper.




                                                                    Technical Report
                                           Prograrn                 W e t 1 a n d                                F 1 o r a

                                                                    No. 91-5 / May 1991                           Gene M. Silberhorn


             Pickerelweed
             Tuckahoe

             Pontederia cordata L.


             Growth Habit and Diagnosific Characteristics                       nontidal areas, Pontederia often occupies the shoreline
                 Pickerelweed is a striking, fleshy perennial appear-           of lakes and ponds.
             ing in tidal freshwater, riverine wetlands in the inter-
             tidal zone, between mean sea level and mean high                   Habitat
             wa 'ter. At peak season, the plant's two pron-drient fea-              In the coastal plain riverine wetlands of our area,
             tures are its rich green, heart-shaped (cordate) leaves            Pontederia commonly grows in soft, muddy sediments
             and attractive spike of violet-blue flowers. The leaves,           between mean sea level and mean high water (inter-
             20 to 40 cm long (8 to 10 in) and 10 to 20 cm wide (4 to           tidal zone). It often functions as a pioneer species in
             8 in), have an array of delicate veins that parallel one           this habitat, invading mud flats in advance of its usual
             another and the characteristic shape of the leaf. Al-              companion counterpart, Peltandra virginica. Pickerel-
             though the dense foliage and height (60 to 120 cm - 2 to           weed is seldom found in marshes where salinities
             ft) are prominent habit features, the spike of blue                average above 0.7 ppt. Arrow head (Sagittaria latifolia),
             flowers (May to September) may be its most asthetic                bultongue (Sagittariafalcata), giant bulrush (Scirpus
             asset. A marsh dominated by this plant will have a                 validus) and wild rice (Zizania aquatica) are frequent or
             defirlite blue hue during the blooming season because              occasional associate species.
             of the mulitiude of flowering spikes. Subtending the
             flower spike is a leaf-like bract, very similar to the
             vegetative leaves. Pontederia often grows in association           Ecological Values/Benefits
             with arrow arum (Peltandra virginica). Although both                   Oligohaline and freshwater tidal riverine wetlands
             species are somewhat similar, they can be easily dif-              of the Chesapeake Bay watershed are important spawn-
             ferentiated. Pickerelweed has heartshaped leaves and               ing and nursery areas for anadromous fishes, such as
             blue flowers and arrow arum has an enclosed (spathe)               herring and shad. The reddish, bladder-like seeds of
             spike (spadix) and triangular shaped leaves with three             pickerelweed have limited value as waterfowl food.
             prominent veins.
             Density and Production                                             Hydrophytic Factor/Federal Delineation
                  Production estimates of Pontederia are often com-                 According to the Federal Manual for Identifying and
                                                                                Delineating jurisdictional Wetlands and the National List
             bined with Peltandra in the scientific literature largely          of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Virginia (1988),
             because both species usually occur as the arrow                    Pontederia cordata is classified as an obligate wetland
             arum/pickerelweed community in the intertidal zone.                plant (OBU OBLs are plants that almost always occur
             In the Mid-Atlantic region, peak standing crop es-                 in wetlands (>99% probability).
             timates for this community range from 450 to over 1200
             9 (dry w0/rn   2, averaging over 660 or up to 5 tons per
             acre per year. These figures are comparable to the very
             productive saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora).
             Stem density is not well documented, but estimated to
                                      2
             be from 10 to 20 per m .   Fleshy aquatic plants, such as
             Pontederia, rapidly decompose at the end of the grow-
             ing season. The familiar vegetated shores are mainly
             bare mud by October.
                                           r @0@ï¿½















             Distribution
                  Pickerelweed ranges throughout the eastern North
             America from Canada to South Carolina and Texas. In






                       Pontederia cordata (L.)
                                                                                      k U1

                                                                                      '3,

                                                                                      5









                                                                                                                      it




                                                                                                                  ;,"A

                                                                                                             Jw
                                                                                                     j
                                                                                                                  -N,44
                                                                                                                    4
                                                                                               Z@@W--
                                                                                                                 djq
                                                                                   JA              %
                                                                                                             s

                                                                                                                  A*1



                                                                                                               IiY

                                                                         A

                                                                       -W

                                                       B
                                                                       Al

                                                                                      P4
                                                                                                            q,
                                                                                                             A



                                                       ?17
                                                                                       &4,
                                                                         VJ
                                                                        ffI
                                                                                      44
                                                                                'w"
                                                                           Y                                        j
                                                                                         Vg'31,43,
                                                        Al",
                                                                                    V     NOV",
                                                                                                                  @-V
                                                                          3,
                                                                                 il@:AWI
                                                       , Ln                                            "W"
                                                                                                        T


                                                                                      M"






            College of William and Mary                    77tis report was funded, in part, by the Virginia          Illustration by
            Virginia Institute of Marine Science           Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources
            School ofMarine Science                        Management Program through grant#                            Rita Uanso,
            Wetlands Program                               NA89AA-C-CZ134 of the National Oceanic and
            GloucesterPoint, Virginia 23062                AtmosphericAdministration.

            Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director            Printed on recycled paper.




                                                                           Technical Report
                                             Program                       W e t I a n d                            F I o r a

                                                                           No. 91-7 / July 1991                      Gene M. Silberhorn


              Red Maple

              Acer mbrum L.


              Growth HaWt and D!aSmastic Characteristics                          and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana). Red
                   An immature red maple tree has relatively smooth,              maple is a very opportunistic tree, often one the chief
              gray bark similar to American beech (Fagus grandifoh4),             invaders or pioneer species that proliferates cutover
              which retains even gray bark throughout life. In con-               woodlands or even abandoned fields.
              trast, as red maple ages, the bark darkens, longitudinal                 This tree is also found in a wide variety of other
              farrows form and often breaks off in strap-like fashion.            freshwater wetland types. Red maple is a common sub-
              The leaves are arranged oppositely on the stem and are              ordinate species in the tidal swamps in the Pamunkey
              fan-lobed, exhibiting the familiar 'maple leaf shape'.              River Watershed of Virginia, occupying sites with two
                   The twigs and buds are reddish, especially in the              dominant species, green ash and black gum (Nyssa syl-
              spring, hence the name red maple. The underneath                    vactica var. biflora). Acer rubrum is also very common in
              side of the leaves is whitish in color. This characteristic         the Great Dismal Swamp in Virginia and North
              is particularly evident in a breeze.                                Carolina, especially in areas that were timbered within
                   The winged fruit (samara) occurs in pairs and is               the last 50 years.
              reddish in the spring, turning straw-brown as it ma-
              tures.                                                              Ecological Values/Benefits
                   A similar species, silver maple (Acer saccharinum),                 Since red maple is found in several different wet-
              may also be found in wet woods, but it can be distin-               land types, both tidal and nontidal, the broad range of
              guished from red maple by the deeper notches be-                    ecological values attributable to forested wetlands in
              tween the leaf lobes. Red maple is much more common                 general may be applied to this species as a common
              in botton-dand hardwood forests or swamps of coastal                component of these habitats.
              Virginia than silver maple.                                              Nontidal wetlands function as natural filters of
                   Another tree species that may be confused with                 high nutrient loads which often originate from
              red maple is sweet gum, (Liquidambar styraciflua), be-              croplands as well as sediment runoff, pesticide and her-
              cause it has sin-d1arily shaped five-lobed leaves. This             bicide residues and other potential toxins. They also
              tree may also be a component of certain wet woods,                  serve as habitat for wildlife.
              but it has alternate leaves, green on the underneath                     Specifically, red maple often produces abundant
              side, and large, spherical, bur-like fruits, often referred         seeds, a food source for birds and squirrels. As a
              to as 'gum balls'.                                                  pioneer species, A. rubrum is known to rapidly invade
                                                                                  cutover woodlands, eventually providing cover and
              Distribution                                                        shade, browse for deer, adding organic matter to the
                   Red maple is found throughout most of the eastern              soil and other modifying contributions.
              two thirds of the United States in both uplands and
              wooded wetlands.                                                    Hydrophytic Factor/Federal Delineation
                                                                                       According to the Federal Manual Pr Identifying and
              Habitat                                                             Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989) and the Nation-
                   Acer rubrum occurs in a very wide range of                     al List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Virginia
              habitats, from hillsides to swamps, which may have                  (1988), Acer rubrum is classified as a facultative plant
              standing water three to six weeks or more of the year.              (FAC). FACs are plants that are "equally likely to occur
                @e@pro@ï¿½













              It is usually a common community component of                       in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability
              winter wet woods, otherwise known as PF01A                          34%-66%)".
              (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Tem-
   10         porarily Flooded) wetlands according to federal ter-
              n-dnology/classification. In this wetland type, it often
              occurs with sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), black
              gum (Nyssa sylvatica), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvatica)







                              Acer rubrum L.


                                                                                                   Z-N


                                                                                           ld@
                                                                                             1%
                                                V
                                                                                            /6f @
                                                                                         to
                                                 4@
                     , 71*k
                                N

                                                                                                                       4r,



                         7-ow,",
                                   g
                                  0
                                                                                                      Xv

                                             x

                                                                                                         T@d i
                                           F, z
                                                                                            :,4-
                                                                                     04 "Y",
                     a                                                                         w X
                                                                            Vol                        ol


                                                                                         v






                                41





                                                                      t ei
                                                                      151


                                                                                      T1                                    vi:








                 College of William and Mary                    This report was funded, in part, by the Virginia            Illustration by
                 Virginia Institute of Marine Science           Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources                Rita Llanso
                 School of Marine Science                       Management Program through grant
                 Wetlands Program                               # NA89AA-C-CZ134 of the National Oceanic
                 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062               andAtmospheric Administration.

                 Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director            Printed on recycled paper.







                                        THE PERMIT PROCESS


                                                          Contents



                      Coastal Resources and the Permit Process: Definitions and Jurisdictions. VIMS Technical
                      Report 91-2


                      The Role of VIMS in the Permit Process


                      Virginia Marine Resources Commission Role








                                                                                Coastal Resources
                                                                              and the Permit Process:
                                         Program                                 Definitions and
                                                                                  Jurisdictions

                                
                                       

                    February 1991 No. 91-2
                    

                          
                                                                                     Julie G. Bradshaw

                    Technical                                    This paper reviews the jurisdictions of the various regulatory
                                                                 agencies and the definitions of terms relating to wetlands
                    Report                                       and other coastal resources in Virginia. The procedure for
                                                                 processing of permits for activities involving coastal resources is
                                                                 outlined.
 

                                                                 Regulatory Authority
                 College of William and Mary

                 Virginia Institute of Marine Science                 Activities on Virginia's shoreline are controlled by a number of
                 School of Marine Science                        federal and state laws. The laws create overlapping jurisdictions
                 Wetlands Program
                 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062
                                                                 for the various regulatory agencies.
                                                              
                 Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director
                 Kirk J. havens, Editor                          State/local
                 Harold Burrell, Artwork
                                                                   Pertinent laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia include the
                                                              Tidal Wetlands Act (Title 62. 1, Chapter 2. 1) and the Coastal
                 Commonwealth's                               Primary Sand Dune Protection Act (Title 62.1, Chapter 2.2). The
                 Declared Policy:                             Commonwealth's ownership of subaqueous land is established in
                                                              Title 62. 1, Chapter 1 of the Virginia Code. The Virginia Marine
                 "to preserve the                             Resources Commission (VMRC is the regulating authority for the
                 wetlands and to                              coastal resources included in these laws. Localities (i.e., counties,
                                                              cities, and towns) which desire to regulate their own tidal wetlands
                 prevent their                                or sand dunes have the option of adopting prescribed zoning or-
                 despoliation and                             dinances and forming citizen Wetlands Boards. VMRC retains an
                 destruction..."                              oversight and appellate role for localities which have adopted these
                                                              coastal resource ordinances.


                                                                       Federal

                    This report was funded, in part, by
                    the Virginia Council on the                        Federal laws include Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
                    Environment's Coastal Resources              1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251) which addresses dredge and fill operations in
                    Management Program through                   wetlands and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation
                    grant # NA89AA-D-CZ134 of the
                    National Oceanic and Atmos-                 Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) which addresses activities affecting
                    pheric Administration.                       navigation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is assigned as the
                                                                 primary federal agency with regulatory authority for these laws.
                                                                 The Corps jurisdiction established by these laws includes waters of
                                                                 the U.S. and their adjacent wetlands.
                                                                         


                    Printed on recycled paper                                                       (continued)                                                                                        (continued)
 






              2



              Tidal datums                                                datum for land elevations on USGS topographic
                                                                          maps. NGVD was formerly known as the Sea
              mean low water (MLW)-the average eleva-                     Level Datum of 1929. The name was changed be-
              tion of low water observed over a specific 19 year          cause of confusion with the tidal datum Mean
              period                                                      Sea Level (defined above). Relationships be-
                                                                          tween NGVD and local tidal datums are variable
              mean high water (AIHW)-the average eleva-                   and are published in conjunction with the'tidal
              tion of high water observed over a specific 19              bench mark data by the National Ocean Service.
              year period
                                                                          State/local definitions
              mean tide range-the difference in elevation
              between MLW and MHW                                         vegetated wetlands are those lands which
                                                                          satisfy these criteria:
              mean sea level-the average of hourly water
              elevations observed over a specific 19 year period               *  between MLW and an elevation. above
                                                                                  MLW equal to 1.5 times the mean tide
              Notes: The National Oceanic. and Atmospheric                        range
              Administration's National Ocean Service keeps                    *  contiguous to MLW
              tidal datum records at a network of gage sta-                    *  vegetated with any of the listed wetland
              tions along the coast. The specific 19 year period                  plant species (Appendix A)
              used for calculating MLW and MHW, called the
              Metonic cycle or the National Tidal Datum                   nonvegetated wetlands are those lands which
              Epoch, incorporates a number of the astrohomi-              satisfy these criteria:
              calcycles which cause variations in tide levels.                 -  between MLW and MHW
                   The National Geodetic Vertical Datum                        @ contiguous to MLW
              (IVGVD) is a fixed reference based on the earth's                9 not otherwise considered.vegetated wet-
              shape and the distance between the earth's sur-                     lands
              face and the center of the earth. NGVD is the
















                                                                   MHW
                                                                       ---------- -
                                                          1.5 x Mean              Mean Tide Range
                                                                   MLW


                                      Vegetated                                                Nonvegetated
                                       Wetlands                   Subaqueous Land                Wetlands
                                                                                                        H
                                       (Wetland                       (VMRQ                      (Wetland
                                        Board)                                                    Board)








                                                                                                                           3


               Subtidal land or subtidal bottom refers to                coastal primary sand dunes are those lands
               the area channelward or seaward of MLW,                   which have the following characteristics:
               without regard to political subdivision or land
               ownership.                                                        mound of unconsolidated sandy soil
                                                                                 contiguous to MHW
               Subaqueous land or subaqueous beds refer                          landward and lateral limits marked by a
               to ungranted beds of the bays, rivers, creeks and                 change in grade from 10% or greater to
               shores of the sea which are owned by the Com-                     less than 10%
               monwealth. This includes the beds of tidal and                    vegetated with any of the listed dune
               nontidal water bodies. Because property owner-                    plant species (Appendix B)
               ship in Virginia extends channelward to MLW in                    applies only to Counties of Accomack,
               tidal areas, subaqueous land is the land channel-                 Lancaster, Mathews, Northampton, Nor-
               ward of MLW, with some exceptions:                                thumberland, and Cities of Hampton,
                                                                                 Norfolk, and Virginia Beach.
                    Potomac River
                                                                         beaches are those lands which meet the follow-
                    The Potomac River is owned by the State of           ing criteria:
               Maryland and the District of Columbia. The
               boundary between Maryland and Virginia is                       * the shoreline zone of unconsolidated
               generally at MLW on the Virginia side of the                      sandy material
               river, except where embayments, creeks and in-                  e extends from MLW landward to a
               lets occur, at which the boundary line is from                    marked change in material composition
               headland-to-headland. Therefore, VMRC often                       or in physiographic form (e.g., dune,
               may not have jurisdiction over subtidal land on                   bluff, marsh)
               the Potomac River.                                              * if no such marked change occurs, then
                                                                                 the landward limit of the beach is
                    Manmade canals                                               defined by a line of woody vegetation or
                                                                                 the nearest impermeable manmade
                    VMRC does not currently exert jurisdiction                   structure.
               over subtidal land in manmade canals. How-
               ever, the Commonwealth's Tidal Wetlands Act
               does apply to vegetated and nonvegetated wet-
               lands within manmade canals.








                                   Coastal Primary Sand Dune                   Beach
                                                           (Wetland Board)             Nonvegetated
                                                                                       1 Wetlands I Subaqueous Land
                                                                                       @Vetland Board)   (VMRC)
                                                                                             Waters of the U.S.
                                                                                        (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)


                          Slope  Slope
                     Less Than Greater Than
                           10%110%                                                       MHW         MLW
                                                           k TV UL







             4



             Federal definitions
                                                                                 The federal definition includes both tidal
                   The federal definition of wetlands is based              and nontidal wetlands.
             on three parameters: soil, hydrology, and vegeta-
             tion. Specifically, wetlands are: "those areas                      In tidal areas, wetlands under federal juris-
             that are inundated or saturated by surface or                  diction may encompass a broader area than the
             groundwater at a frequency and duration suffi-                 stateAocal jurisdiction (i.e., federal wetlands
             cient to support, and that under normal cir-                   may extend to elevations greater than 1.5 times
             cumstances do support, a prevalence of                         the mean tide range above MLW).
             vegetation typically adapted.for life in saturated
             soil conditions."























                                  Wetlands &
                         Waters of the U.S. (Nontidal)                                 Wetlands & Waters of the U.S.
                         (U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers)                         I     (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
                                                                                            Vegetated
                                                                                                           Subaqueous Land
                                                                                        I   WP, t] a n dR I
                                                                                         (VMRC Wor WBJ          (VMRC)










                                                                                                1.5 x Mean Tide Range
                                                                                                                          MHW


                                                                                                                          MLW








                                                                                                                                       5



                Permit Process                                                  plication initiates the permit process. Applica-
                                                                                tions are processed independently by each agen-
                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia                     cy-
                Marine Resources Commission, and/or local wet-                        The VIMS involvement in the permit
                lands board permits may be required for ac-                     process is strictly advisory. VIMS provides tech-
                tivities in Virginia's wetlands, subaqueous beds,               nical and scientific advice to the Common-
                sand dunes, and beaches. Activities which may                   wealtWs regulatory agencies. Advice generally
                require permits include, but are not limited to,                involves estimation of marine environmental im-
                dredging, filling, and construction of bulkheads,               pacts and recommendation of alternatives or
                riprap revetments, groins, jetties, boat ramps,                 modifications to minimize these impacts.
                and piers. Submission of the Joint Permit Ap-



                                                Virginia's Shoreline Permit Process


                                                                             VIMS                Local Staff



                                                       Wetlands             60 DAYS                 Public           30 DAYS
                                                         Board                                    Hearing                          DECISION
                                                                            Site Visit






             Completed                                               VMRC-VIMS
            Joint Permit                     VMRC                                                    Public                         DECISION
                                                                       Site Visit                   He *
         Application Form                                                                              anng


                                                                                                                     SEAS
                                                                                                                     COE
                                                                                                     STATE           VMRC
                                                                                                                     VIMS
                                                                                                                     WCB
                                                                                                                     VDGIF

                                                                     15 DAYS          Public        45DAYS           Joint
                                                      Corps                          Notice &                 0 Processing           DECISION
                                                                                     Site Visit                    Meeting

                                         KEY                                                                         CE
                VDGEF - Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries                          FEDERAL            EPA
                VMRC    Virginia Marine Resources Commission                                                         FWS
                VIMS    Virginia Institute of Marine Science                                                         NMFS
                WCB     Water Control Board
                SEAS    Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service
                COE     Council on the Environment
                                                                                                     STATE




















                EPA     Environmental Protection Agency
                FWS     Fish and Wildlife Service
                NMFS    Narional Marine Fisheries Service
                CE      Corps of Engineers







           6




                                                            AppendixA


                                                    List of wetlands plant species
                                                   in Virginia's Tidal Wetlands Act


                                     saltmarsh cordgrass                  (Spartina alterniflora)
                                     saltmeadow hay                       (Spartina patens)
                                     saltgrass                            (Distichlis spicata)
                                     black needlerush                     (Juncus roemerianus)
                                     saltwort                             (Salicornia sp.)
                                     sealavender                          (Limonium sp.)
                                     marsh elder                          (Iva frutescens)
                                     groundsel bush                       (Baccharis halimifolia)
                                     wax myrtle                           (Myrica. sp.)
                                     sea oxeye                            (Borrichia frutescens)
                                     arrow arum.                          (Peltandra virginica)
                                     pickerelweed                         (Pontederia cordata)
                                     big cQrdgrass                        (Spartina cynosuroides)
                                     rice cutgrass                        (Leersia oryzoides)
                                     wildrice                             (Zizania aquatica)
                                     bulrush                              (Scirpus validus)
                                     spiker6sh                            (Eleocharis sp.)
                                     sea rocket                           (Cakile edentula)
                                     southern wildrice                    (Zizaniopsis miliacea),.
                                     cattails                             (Typha spp.)
                                     three-squares                        (Scirpus spp.)
                                     buttonbush                           (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
                                     bald cypress                         (Taxodium distichum)
                                     black gum                            (Nyssa sylvatica)
                                     tupelo                               (Nyssa aquatica)
                                     dock                                 (Rumex sp.)
                                     yellow pond lily                     (Nuphar sp.)
                                     marsh fleabane                       (Pluchea purpurascens)
                                     royal fprn                           (Osmunda regalis)
                                     marsh hibiscus                       (Hibiscus moscheutos)
                                     beggar's tick                        (Bidens sp.)
                                     smartweed                            (Polygonum sp.)
                                     arrowhead                            (Sagittaria spp.)
                                     sweet flag                           (Acorus calamus)
                                     water hemp                           .(Amaranthus cannabinus)
                                     reed grass                           (Phragmites communis,
                                                                             now called P. australis)
                                     switch grass                         (Panicum virgatum)








                                                                                                                               7




                                                                 AppendixB


                                                     List of dune plant species in Virginia's
                                                  Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act


                                     American beach grass               (Ammophila breviligulata)
                                     beach heather                      (Hudsonia tomentosa)
                                     dune bean                          (Strophostyles umbellata var paludigena)
                                     dusty miller                       (Artemisia stelleriana)
                                     saltmeadow hay                     (Spartina patens)
                                     seabeach sandwort                  (Arenaria peploides)
                                     sea oats                           (Uniolapaniculata)
                                     sea rocket                         (Cakile edentula)
                                     seaside goldenrod                  (Solidago sempervirens)
                                     short dune grass                   (Panicum amarum)






                                                                      Contacts

                                     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                        Norfolk District                                            (804) 441-7656
                                        Northern Neck field office (Lively)                         (804) 462-7891
                                        Northern Virginia field office (Dumfries)                   (703) 221-6967

                                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gloucester field office        (804) 693-6694

                                     Virginia Marine Resources Commission (Newport News)            (804) 247-2252

                                     Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (Gloucester Point)          (804) 642-7121
                                        (a program of the Dept. of Conservation and
                                        Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
                                        Shoreline Programs Bureau)

                                     Virginia Council on* the Environment (Richmond)                (804) 786-4500

                                     Virginia Water Control Board (Richmond)                        (804) 367-9763

                                     Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries (Richmond)         (804) 367@1000

                                     Virginia Dept. of Health (Richmond)                            (804) 786-7937

                                     Virginia Institute of Marine Science (Gloucester Point)        (804) 642-7380






































                                   Technical                                                                     NON PROFIT ORGAN ZATION
                                                                                                                   U.S. POSTAGE PIAID
                         Program   Report                                                                          GLOU. PT., VA 23W2
                                                                                                                      PERM IT #6
              College of William and Mary
              Virginia Inslifule of Marine Science
              School of Marine Science
              Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 U.S-A.









                                 The Role of VIMS in the Permit Process



                          The Virginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science of the College of Wil-
                          liam and Mary is, as its name would indicate, unique in its blend of activities stemming
                          from Title 28, Chapter 9 of the Code of Virginia. Sometimes called Virginia's
                          Oceanographic Law, this section of the Code mandates three principal areas of respon-
                          sibility to VIMS:


                                 0 Applied and fundamental research on the resources and environment of the
                                  tidal waters of the Commonwealth.


                                 *Advice and assistance for the public and private managers and users of these en-
                                  vironments and resources.


                                 *Educational programs at all interest levels fostering marine science scholarship,
                                  informed decision-making in resource management and an enlightened public.


                          The linkage of these three areas of responsibility is a major strength and allows VIMS
                          to provide necessary technical input to the shoreline permit process.


                          The Virginia Wetlands Act stipulates that VIMS will evaluate wetlands by type and
                          maintain a continuing inventory of vegetated wetlands. VIMS is also charged with ad-
                          vising and assisting the VMRC with producing guidelines which scientifically evaluate
                          wetlands by type and set forth the consequences of use of each type. These activities
                          have been completed, and in the case of the guidelines completely revised in 1984.
                          VIMS also assisted in the preparation of the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Guidelines
                          adopted in 1980.


                          VIMS' educational and advisory mandates dictate several other activities in which the
                          Institute is involved with the state shoreline permit system. Wetlands workshops and
                          field trips are offered for board members, staff persons and other resource managers on
                          the state and federal levels. Subjects covered include the types and values of wetlands,
                          wetland delineation, impacts of man's activities, etc. VIMS prepared a detailed wetland
                          curriculum during 1991 which serves as the basis for its education efforts on behalf of
                          local resource managers, planners and staff. The Wetlands Program at VIMS also pub-
                          lisbes The Virginia Wetlands Report, a quarterly bulletin which features news and ar-
                          ticles of interest to Virginia resource managers. In addition, a technical report series
                          presents detailed background information on wetlands and other resources in the coas-
                          tal zone. A series of publications describing the common and not so common plants






             The Role of VIMS in the Permit Process




                  found in wetland habitats is also produced bi-monthly and distributed to managers and
                  other interested persons throughout the Commonwealth.


                  VIMS'technical advisory role in the process consists of preparing environmental assess-
                  ments for each application considered by a wetlands board or the VMRC. After visiting
                  the site, a report is prepared outlining the resource impacts involved and describing al-
                  ternatives and mitigating measures which would materially reduce the adverse effects
                  of the proposal. This report serves as the principal environmental input to the wetlands
                  public interest review and thus is an integral part of the decision-making process.


                  The Wetlands Program at VIMS is involved in ongoing research which contributes to
                  the management effort overall. Studies involving the identification of the values and
                  functions of wetlands, the impacts of man's activities in wetlands, the monitoring of
                  created marshes, the effects of fire and the use of wetlands by estuarine organisms, as
                  well as birds and other wildlife contribute to informed decision-making. VIMS scientists
                  are available as needed to answer questions regarding wetlands and the marine en-
                  vironment generally.



































            2








                              Virginia Marine Resources Commission Role


                            The regulation of Virginia!s tidal wetlands and coastal primary sand dunes is a joint
                            responsibility of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (Commission) and in-
                            dividual wetlands boards. In addition to assisting the local wetlands boards where pos-
                            sible, the role of the Commission involves the review of wetlands board decisions, the
                            review of appeals filed by applicants or freeholders and the original consideration of ap-
                            plications for use or development of state-owned wetlands as well as wetlands and
                            dunes in localities without boards. The Commission also acts as the "clearing house" for
                            the Joint Permit Application which must be submitted for all wetlands projects (a
                            separate application must be submitted for projects involving primary dunes which
                            should be filed at the local level). The Commission is responsible for assigning a joint
                            permit processing number to each wetlands application and distributing the application
                            to the local wetlands boards. These duties and functions are carried out by the
                            Commission's Habitat Management Division.


                            As required by Code, the Commission must review each board decision for projects in-
                            volving both wetlands and coastal primary sand dunes. Commission staff must evaluate
                            whether or not the local board properly considered and applied the policy, standards
                            and guidelines of the wetlands and dunes act. If the Commissioner concludes that the
                            decision of the board does not comply with the policy, standard or guidelines, the board
                            chairman will be notified and the decision will be reviewed by the full Commission
                            within 45 days.


                            A decision of a local board may also be appealed by an applicant or 25 freeholders in the
                            county, city or town. All appeals must be filed within 10 days *of the wetlands board
                            decision. Upon receipt of an appeal or decision for review, the Commissioner will re-
                            quire that the record of the board proceedings (transcript of testimony, application, ex-
                            hibits, photos, etc.) be forwarded to the Commission.


                            In order to develop an efficient working relationship with the various wetlands boards,
                            each environmental engineer on staff within the Habitat Management Division is as-
                            signed a geographic area of responsibility. The engineer in each political jurisdiction is
                            responsible for tracking the progress of each application and providing assistance to the
                            local government. The engineer visits each project site and generally attends each wet-
                            lands board meeting. While the engineer can provide assistance regarding procedures
                            and the processing of applications, they cannot make recommendations to the board as
                            this would prejudice the Commission's required review of each board decision. The en-
                            gineers are also available for consultation regarding violations of the wetlands or dunes
                            ordinances.







                                     ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                        AND VMRC ADVICE


                                                      Contents


                  Official Attorney General Opinions on Matters Related to Wetlands and Dunes Issues


                  A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures in Light of Recent Changes to Title 62.1 of the
                  Code of Virginia

                  General Permit VGP #2 (Involves groin permits and wetlands boards)


                  Criteria for the Placement of Sandy Dredged Material Along Beaches in the Commonwealth


                  Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, and
                  the Virginia Marine Resources Commission for the Implementation of a Certificate of
                  Compliance with Norfolk District's Regional Permit 90-17




                                      I



 0





       Official Attorney General Opinions

             On Matters Related To


          Wetlands And Dunes Issues
 0













0






             Attorney General Opinions



                                                CONTENTS



             June 20, 1979             Opinion by AG Coleman to Commissioner Douglas on LWB ability
                                       to modify permits at administrative meetings.

             February 9, 1981          Opinion by AG Coleman to Dan Stuck (County Attorney for New
                                       Kent) on repeal of local ordinance.

             September 1, 1982         Opinion by AG Baliles to Commissioner Douglas on the meaning of
                                       terms plan or plan of development.

             September 1, 1982         Opinion by AG Baliles to Commissioner Douglas on LWB authority
                                       over federal activities in wetlands and dunes (Update requested
                                       August 25, 1989 and May 31, 199 1).

             September 28, 1982        Opinion by AG Baliles to Del. McClanan concerning readvertise-
                                       ment and a second application fee for modified applications.

             December 16, 1982         Opinion by AG Baliles to Del. McClanan on LWB members ap-
                                       pearance and testifying before Commission.

             January 10, 1983          Opinion by AG Baliles to Del. Pickett on LWB permit require-
                                       ments for houses on pilings.

             January 18, 1983          Opinion by AG Baliles to Sen. Parker on exemption for governmen-
                                       tal activities in wetlands.


             February 27, 1984         Opinion by AG Baliles to Del. Pickett on parliamentary procedures.

             October 31, 1984          Opinion by AG Baliles to Commissioner Pruitt on LWB authority
                                       to regulate groin length.

             December 19, 1984         Opinion by AG Baliles to John Foote (County Attorney for Prince
                                       William) regarding permit requirements for bulkhead main-
                                       tenance and repair/replacement.

             October 22, 1985          Opinion by AG Broaddus to Del. Murphy on local government's
                                       authority to regulate private piers.

             August 5, 1988            Opinion by AG Terry to Del. Tata concerning time requirements in
                                       the Act and pending enforcement actions.






             2






                                                                                       Attorney General Opinions



                     Wetlands Act. Public Notice and Hearing Required When Permittee
                     Seeks Modification in Conditions and Limitations of Permit.


                                                            June 20, 1979


                     The Honorable James E. Douglas, Jr., Commissioner
                     Marine Resources Commission


                          You ask whether a local wetlands board followed lawful procedure when it modified a
                          permit at an "administrative" meeting. The permit had been granted over a year earlier
                          after a public hearing held pursuant to ï¿½ï¿½ 6 and 7 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance
                          prescribed by ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,


                          You have advised me that the board follows the practice of holding an administrative
                          meeting on the first Tuesday of each month. These meetings are scheduled on the an-
                          nual calendar of the local government as to date and location, and are open to the
                          public. There is no compliance, however, with ï¿½ 6 of the Ordinance, as no agenda items
                          are advertised for these meetings. The board also holds a public hearing or meeting on
                          the third Tuesday of each month. Agenda items for these meetings are advertised in
                          compliance with ï¿½ 6 of the Ordinance.


                          The permit in question had been granted over a year earlier, but changed circumstan-
                          ces now prevent the permittees from complying with the conditions and limitations of
                          the permit. At two recent administrative meetings, the permittees requested modifica-
                          tions in spoil sites and bond requirements. There was to be no change in the encroach-
                          ment on the wetlands. At the first administrative meeting, the board decided to set the
                          matter for public hearing. At the second administrative meeting, the board reconsidered
                          and granted the modification. Appeal has been taken to the commission by 25 or more
                          freeholders pursuant to ï¿½ 62.1-13.11(3), alleging the modification was made upon unlaw-
                          ful procedure. See ï¿½ 62.1-13.13(2)(c). I am advised that these appellants were not at the
                          second administrative meeting, and did not know the modification was then under con-
                          sideration.


                          Section 8 of the Ordinance provides that if a permittee fails to comply with the condi-
                          tions and limitations in an issued permit, the permittee is entitled to a hearing before
                          the permit can be suspended or revoked. Also, under ï¿½ 9(a) of the Ordinance, the board
                          may grant applications in modified form, but in so doing the board shall base its
                          decision on matters raised through testimony of any person in support of or in rebuttal
                          to the permit application. See Ordinance ï¿½ 9(a)(1). Without notice pursuant to ï¿½ 6 of the
                          Ordinance, there may be no opportunity for rebuttal testimony.





                                                                                                                 3






            Attorney General Opinions




                  Accordingly, I find that the decision of the board was made upon unlawful procedure.
                  The commission should modify or reverse the decision of the board if the commission
                  finds that the substantial rights of appellants have been prejudiced because of the un-
                  lawful procedure. See ï¿½ 62.1-13.13(2).






















































            4






                                                                                                            Attorney General Opinions



                          Wetlands Act. Counties, Cities and Towns. Ordinances. Authority to
                          Repeal Standard Wetlands Zoning Ordinance Once Adopted.


                                                                         February 9, 1981


                          The Honorable Daniel M. Stuck
                          County Attorney for New Kent County


                                You ask whether a county, city or town is authorized to repeal the standard Wetlands
                                Zoning ordinance provided for in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
                                once the governing body has adopted the ordinance.


                                Section 62.1-13.5 provides that any county, city or town may adopt a standard Wetlands
                                Zoning Ordinance, as set out in the statute. I find no specific provision in the wetlands
                                law (Ch. 2.1 of Title 62.1) that authorizes repeal, but at the same time, I find no specific
                                provision that prohibits repeal.


                                The adoption of ordinances is a legislative act, and ordinarily the legislative power of a
                                local governing body is not limited or exhausted by one exercise, and an ordinance once
                                adopted may be amended or repealed.'


                                Accordingly, in the absence of any express statutory prohibition against repeal, I find
                                that a county, city or town is authorized to repeal the standard Wetlands Zoning Or-
                                dinance provided for in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5.       2









                                'See Opinion to the Honorable Stephen C. Harris, Commonwealth's Attorney for Louisa County, dated March
                                24, 1976, found in Report of the Attorney General (1975-1976) at 26; Opinion to the Honorable J. Richmond
                                Low, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney for King George County, dated July 14, 1980 (copy enclosed).

                                2Section 62.1-13.9 provides that when a county, city or town has not adopted the standard ordinance, applica-
                                tions for permits shall be made directly to the Marine Resources Commission, and the Commission shall
                                process such applications in accordance with the standard ordinance. in the event a county, city or town
                                repeals the standard ordinance, applications for permits shall again be made directly to the Commission
                                under ï¿½ 62.1-13.9.









                                                                                                                                            5






              Attorney General Opinions



              Wetlands Act. Subdivision Plat is Not a Plan as Co                    ntemplated By
              Exemption Provision of Wetlands Act Unless it is a Monument to
              Developer's Intention Diligently Pursued and it Represents Substan-
              tial Expenditure.


                                                     September 1, 1982


              The Honorable James E. Douglas, Jr., Commissioner
              Alarine Resources Commission


                    You have asked that I reconsider a previous Opinion of this Office, found in the 1972-
                    1973 Report of the Attorney General at 513, which discussed the meaning of the term
                    "plan or plan of development" as used in the Wetlands Act.' Section 62.1-13.20 of the
                    Code of Virginia provides, in pertinent part, that


                         "[nlothing in this chapter shall affect ... (2) any project or development ... for which,
                         prior to July 1, 1972... a plan or plan of development thereof has been filed pur-
                         suant to ordinance or other lawful enactment...."


                    The 1973 Opinion stated that "a subdivision plat which clearly indicates lot lines and
                    streets, the confines of which are identifiable, would constitute a plan or plan of develop-
                    ment..." required for the exemption. You point out that a recent decision of the Circuit
                    Court of Virginia Beach, in a case styled City of Virginia Beach v. Virginia Marine
                    Resources Commission, et al. (C81-Z366-A), found a subdivision plat not to be a plan or
                    plan of development for purposes of the above-quoted exemption from the provisions of
                    the Wetlands Act.


                    The circuit court, in its Memorandum opinion issued May 19, 1982, interpreted "plan or
                    plan of development" to mean either a "plan of developmene submittedunder a zoning
                    ordinance adopted pursuant to ï¿½ 15.1-491,  2 or a plan which would be equivalent to a
                    plan of development, such as a site plan which had been filed and diligently pursued.




                    'The Wetlands Act, ï¿½ 62.1-13.1, et seq., provides generally that all development of wetlands shall require prior
                    permit from either a local wetlands board or the Marine Resources Commission.


                    2When the plat which was the subject of that case was recorded, State law did not require localities to enact
                    subdivision ordinances, and Princess Anne County, which is now a part of the City of Virginia Beach, did not
                    enact such an ordinance until December 22, 1952.








              6






                                                                                         Attorney General Opinions



                           See Fairfax County v. Medical Structures, Inc., 213 Va. 355, 357-358, 192 S.E.2d 799,
                           801 (1972). The court reserved decision on whether a subdivision plat meeting the neces-
                           sary criteria would be regarded as a "plan" for purposes of ï¿½ 62.1-13.20.


                           The court's test for equivalency to a plan of development was a document filed pursuant
                           to law, diligently pursued, which represented (1) a monument to the developer's inten-
                           tion (that is, his intended use of the property), and (2) a substantial good faith expense.
                           The court determined the plat in the Virginia Beach case was only a schematic repre-
                           sentation of land divided and had no purposes other than to facilitate the transfer of
                           ownership of land within the plat. The developer was free to vacate the plat, resub-
                           divide the property, or convey all or part of the parcels identified on it. The court fur-
                           ther noted that the plat in that case did not dedicate property or serve to meet any of
                           the other commitments required of developers recording subdivision plats under
                           modem subdivision ordinances. Hence, it did not satisfy either the requirement of show-
                           ing what the developer intended to build, or the requirement of a substantial expense.
                           Accordingly, it was not exempt from the provisions of the wetlands ordinance.


                           The court's opinion limits the exemption from regulation to those projects for which
                           developers have filed plans which represent a monument to the developer's intention
                           diligently pursued and for which the developer has expended a substantial sum. This
                           construction is sufficiently restrictive to accomplish the protection of undisturbed wet-
                           lands intended by the Wetlands Act. It also provides the protection intended by ï¿½ 62. 1-
                           13.20(2) for those who have not yet begun construction but have so altered their
                           position that in fairness they should be permitted to construct their project.


                           I am, therefore, of the opinion that a subdivision plat, standing alone, is not a plan or
                           plan of development for purposes of the exemption provided in ï¿½ 62.1-13.20(2), unless it
                           is a monument to the developer's intention which has been diligently pursued and it rep-
                           resents a substantial good faith expense. This Opinion supersedes the Opinion found in
                           the 1972-1973 Report of the Attorney General at 513 to the extent that the two
                           Opinions are inconsistent.

















                                                                                                                   7






               Attorney General Opinions



               Wetlands Act. Marine Resources Commission and Local Wetlands
               Boards Have No Authority to Regulate Federal Activities Affecting
               Federally Owned Wetlands.


                                                      September 1, 1982


               The Honorable James E. Douglas, Jr., Commissioner
               Marine Resources Commission


                    You have asked for my opinion as to whether, under the Wetlands Act and the Coastal
                    Primary Sand Dune Protection Act, ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.1, et seq., and 62.1-13.21, et seq., of the
                    Code of Virginia, respectively,' local wetlands boards or the Marine Resources Commis-
                    sion can exercise jurisdiction over vegetated and non-vegetated wetlands and coastal
                    primary sand dunes on lands owned by the federal government.


                    Article VI of the United States Constitution provides that federal law is the supreme
                    law of the land. Thus, states cannot regulate or control the functioning of the federal
                    government within their boundaries in any manner to impede the execution of constitu-
                    tio nally granted federal power, except where the federal government has voluntarily
                    subjected itself to state regulatory processes. 1978-1979 Report of the Attorney General
                    at 174. As pointed out in that Opinion, the 1977 Clean Water Act amended ï¿½ 404 of the
                    Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1344(t), to expressly require that
                    federal agencies comply with all substantive and procedural state requirements concern-
                    ing the discharge of dredged or fill material. Therefore, to the extent that any project in-
                    volves the discharge of dredged or fill material in any portion of the navigable waters
                    within Virginia's jurisdiction, that activity is subject to regulation by State law.


                    The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S. C. ï¿½ 145 1, et seq., does not waive
                    federal immunity from state requirements, but ï¿½ 1456(c)(2) directs federal agencies to
                    ensure that any development project in the coastal zone is consistent, to the maximum
                    extent practicable, with approved state coastal zone management programs. The re-
                    quirements or approval are found in 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1455(c). Because Virginia elected not to
                    have an approved coastal zone management program, this provision is not applicable.*




                    'Both acts require permits for use or development of "wetlands" and "coastal primary sand dunes" from either
                    the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, or a wetlands board created pursuant to ï¿½ 62.1-13.6. See ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-
                    13.5 ï¿½4(a) and 62.1-13.26.


                    *Virginia now has an "approved" coastal zone management plan and thus the directive to be consistent with
                    state plans now applies in Virginia.-Editor





               8






                                                                                         Attorney General Opinions





                           I am unaware of any federal laws which specifically waive federal immunity from state
                           regulations for wetlands and primary sand dunes, as was done in the Clean Water Act
                           of 1977. 1 am, therefore, of the opinion that the Marine Resources Commission and the
                           local wetlands boards have no jurisdiction to regulate federal activities on federally
                           owned wetlands and primary sand dunes unless (1) such activities involve the discharge
                           of dredged or fill materials in any portion of the navigable waters within Virginia's juris-
                           diction or (2) federal immunity from state environmental requirements has been specifi-
                           cally waived in the legislation authorizing the project in question.











































                                                                                                                   9






             Attorney General Opinions



             Fees. Local Wetlands Board May Charge Second Fee for Processing
             Modified Permit Application Where Justiflied By Cost of Processing
             Such Modified Application.


                                                    September 28, 1982


             The Honorable Glenn B. McClanan
             Member, House of Delegates


                  You have asked two questions concerning the processing of an application before a local
                  wetlands board. You first ask whether an applicant for a permit from a local wetlands
                  board must pay a second application fee for processing a modified application following
                  the local board's denial of the first permit application, which denial was with leave to
                  resubmit in modified form. The applicant appealed the ruling to the Marine Resources
                  Commission, which, in turn, remanded the application to the local board for a review on
                  the merits of the modified application.


                  The Wetlands Act, ï¿½ 62.1-13. 1, et seq., of the Code of Virginia, provides generally that
                  all non-exempt development of wetlands requires a prior permit from either a local wet-
                  lands board or the Marine Resources Commission. Section 62.1-13.5 provides the only
                  form of Wetlands Zoning Ordinance allowed. Section 4(c) of that form deals with fees as
                  follows:


                        "A nonrefundable processing fee to cover the cost of processing the application, set
                        by the applicable governing body with due regard for the services to be rendered,
                        including the time, skill, and administrator's expense involved, shall accompany
                        each application."


                  Section 9(b) provides that if the local board denies the application, it shall do so "with
                  leave to the applicant to resubmit the application in modified form."


                  The statute authorizes the applicable governing body to set a fee to cover the cost of
                  processing the application including the time, skill and administrator's expense in-
                  volved. I am of the opinion that, if the amended application is equivalent to a new ap-
                  plication which must be processed, the local wetlands board can determine that the cost
                  involved in processing such amended application justifies the imposition of an addition-
                  al fee.


                  You also ask whether consideration of the modified proposal must be readvertised. Sec-
                  tions 6 and 7 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance, as provided in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5, require a





             10






                                                                                            Attorney General Opinions



                            hearing on each application after newspaper publication and mailed notification to cer-
                            tain designated persons. Any person may be heard at the hearing. This provision is
                            clearly intended to allow anyone interested to be heard, and to provide them with notice
                            of their opportunity to be heard.


                            Because the modified application in the case referred to in your letter proposes to use
                            pilings rather than fill, I assume that it is equivalent to a new application for purposes
                            of advertising the hearing. The public has not had the statutorily required opportunity
                            to be heard on the new proposal. See 1978-1979 Report of the Attorney General at 326. 1
                            am, therefore, of the opinion that a hearing on a modified application, which substan-
                            tially differs from the original, must be advertised as required by the Wetlands Zoning
                            Ordinance, as provided in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 (ï¿½ 6).






                Attorney General Opinions



                Wetlands Act. Members of Local Wetlands Board May Appear and
                Testify Before Marine Resources Commission Where Such
                Commission, in its Discretion, Decides to Hear Such Evidence.


                                                             December 16, 1982


                The Honorable Glenn B. McClanan
                Member, House of Delegates


                      You have asked whether it is appropriate for members of a local wetlands board to (1)
                      appear and (2) testify before the Marine Resources Commission (the "Commission") in
                      connection with a hearing       of an appeal from a denial of an application by such local
                      board where the local board members appearing and testifying previously participated
                      in the vote to deny the application.


                      Decisions of a local wetlands board are subject to review by the Commission under the
                      circumstances enumerated in ï¿½ 62.1-13. 11 of the Code of Virginia. The Commission is
                      empowered by ï¿½ 62.1-13.13 to modify, remand or reverse the decision of the wetlands
                      board. 1


                      If the review by the Commission could be equated with appeals from lower courts, or
                      limited to the record prepared by the board, I would be inclined to view as improper an
                      appearance by a board member before the Commission. However, appeals from the
                      board are not so limited. The procedure for review by the Commission is provided in ï¿½
                      62.1-13.12, which provides in pertinent part as follows:




                      'Section 62.1-13.13 provides: "The Commission shall modify, remand or reverse the decision of the wetlands
                      board:
                         (1) If the decision of the wetlands board will not adequately achieve the policy and standards of
                         this chapter or will not reasonably accommodate any guidelines which may have been promul-
                         gated by the Commission hereunder; or
                         (2) If the substantial Tights of the appellant or the applicant have been prejudiced because the
                         findings, conclusions or decisions are
                            (a) In violation of constitutional provisions; or
                            (b) In excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the wetlands board; or
                            (c) Made upon unlawful procedure; or
                            (d) Affected by other error of law; or
                            (e) Unsupported by the evidence on the record considered as a whole; or
                            (f) Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."






                12






                                                                                          Attorney General Opinions



                                "The Commission shall hear the appeal or conduct the review on the record trans-
                                mitted by the board ... and such additional evidence as may be necessary to resolve
                                any controversy as to the correctness of the record. And the Commission, in its dis-
                                cretion, may receive such other evidence as the ends of justice require."


                           This section gives the Commission full discretion to receive any evidence which the
                           ends of justice require. If the Commission decides that testimony of members of the
                           local wetlands board which adopted the position being challenged on appeal would be
                           helpful, the Commission has the discretion to receive it. As long as the appellant has an
                           opportunity to be present to hear and to rebut any adverse evidence presented, he will
                           not be improperly prejudiced by such testimony.


                           I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is not inappropriate for members of a local wet-
                           lands board who participated in a vote denying an application to appear and testify in
                           the appeal of such application before the Commission, provided the Commission, in its
                           discretion, determines that such evidence is appropriate to permit it to render a proper
                           decision.












































                                                                                                                   13






              Attorney General Opinions



              Wetlands Act. Wetlands Permit Required for Setting of Pilings, for
              Construction of Residence on Pilings, for Construction on Pilings of
              Adjoining Open Wooden Deck.


                                                    January 10, 1983


              The Honorable Owen B. Pickett
              Member, House of Delegates


                   You have inquired whether the Wetlands Act (ï¿½ 62.1-13. 1, et seq., of the Code of Vir-
                   ginia) requires that a permit be obtained from the local wetlands board under the follow-
                   ing fact situation: An owner of a parcel of wetlands proposes to improve his parcel by
                   constructing a two-story frame residence on pilings with an adjoining open wooden deck
                   on pilings. No fill dirt will be placed in the wetlands, and the pilings will permit the
                   reasonably unobstructed flow of the tide and preserve the natural contour of the wet-
                   lands. The Army Corps of Engineers has advised that no Department of Army permit
                   will be required.


                   You ask the following three questions. (1) Is a permit required for setting the pilings?
                   (2) Is a permit required for construction of the dwelling on pilings? (3) Is a permit re-
                   quired for construction on pilings of the open wooden deck adjoining the dwelline.


                   Section 62.1-13.9 of the Wetlands Act requires a permit for any activity in wetlands if
                   the local wetlands zoning ordinance contained in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 requires a permit for such
                   activity. Section 4(a) of the local wetlands zoning ordinance requires a permit for "[alny
                   person who desires to use or develop any wetland...other than for those activities
                   specified in ï¿½ 3 above...." (Emphasis added.) Section 3 sets forth the uses and activities
                   on wetlands which are permitted without a permit. The pertinent portion of ï¿½ 3 is sub-
                   section (a) which exempts:


                   "The construction and maintenance of non-commercial catwalks, piers, boathouses, boat
                   shelters, fences, duckblinds, wildlife management shelters, footbridges, observation
                   decks and shelters and other similar structures; provided that such structures are so
                   constructed on pilings as to permit the reasonably unobstructed flow of the tide and
                   preserve the natural contour of the wetlands[J"


                   I will address your first and second questions together, inasmuch as the pilings are to
                   be set as part of the construction of a residence. The setting of pilings for a residence,
                   and the construction of the house built on pilings, would clearly be a use or development
                   of wetlands. Because no exemption is provided for such use or development, I am of the





              14






                                                                                         Attorney General Opinions



                           opinion that setting pilings and building a house on pilings over wetlands would require
                           a permit from the local wetlands board.


                           The last question is whether the construction on pilings of an open wooden deck adjoin-
                           ing the dwelling would be exempted. Section 3(a) permits the construction of observa-
                           tion decks and similar structures as long as they are built on pilings so as to permit the
                           flow of the tide and preserve the contour of the wetlands. The exemptions listed
                           describe small, isolated structures which are used intermittently and which would have
                           minimal effect on the wetlands. The exemptions are not applicable to decks constructed
                           in conjunction with residential development, where the effects of the pilings and the
                           covering of wetlands by the deck would have to be added to the effects resulting from
                           the construction of the dwelling house. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a permit
                           must be obtained for the construction of an open wooden deck adjoining a residence.








































                                                                                                                 15







             Attorney General Opinions



             Wetlands Act. Political Subdivision's Ownership of Easement or
             Right-of-Way Over Wetlands Exempts Its Governmental Activity
             Therein from Requirement to Get Wetlands Permit.


                                                   January 18, 1983


             The Honorable William T. Parker
             Member, Senate of Virginia


                  You have asked if a political subdivision undertaking governmental activities in wet-
                  lands through which it has an easement or right-of-way is exempt from the permit re-
                  quirements of the Wetlands Act, ï¿½ 62.1-13. 1, et seq., of the Code of Virginia.


                  Section 30) of the local wetlands zoning ordinance contained in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 reads as fol-
                  lows:


                       13. The following uses of and activities on wetlands are permitted, if otherwise
                       permitted by law:




                       U) Governmental activity on wetlands owned or leased by the Commonwealth of
                       Virginia, or a political subdivision thereof..."


                  The question is whether wetlands subject to a political subdivision's easement or right-
                  of-way are wetlands "owned or leased" by a political subdivision for the purpose of being
                  permitted by this section. While your letter did not describe the easement or right-of-
                  way, I will assume that such easement or right-of-way has been obtained by properly
                  recorded deed or condemnation proceedings. I further assume that the proposed activity
                  falls within the permissible limits of the terms of the deed.


                  An easement or right-of-way is a different estate from that which an "owner" is normal-
                  ly thought to have. Possession of an easement or right-of-way is, however, ownership of
                  some of the rights to the land. The owner of an easement or right-of-way is the
                  "dominant" tenant and has a right to use the land, thus making the record owner a ser-
                  vient tenant. In tax cases, the word "owner" has covered various types of ownership.










             16






                                                                                                                 Attorney General Opinions


   0                                     "The word 'owner' includes any person who has the usufruct, control or occupation
                                         of the land, whether his interest in it is an absolute fee, or an estate less than a
                                         fee," Stark v. City of Norfolk, 183 Va. 282, 289$ 32 S.E.2d 59 (1944), quoting from
                                         Powers v. Richmond, 122 Va. 328, 335, 94 S. E. 803 (1918).


                                  Interpreting "owned or leased by ... a political subdivision" to include the ownership of an
                                  easement or right-of-way will not subvert the legislative purpose expressed in ï¿½ 62. 1-
                                  13. 1, because the Commonwealth's political subdivisions will necessarily be guided by
                                  the wetlands policy established by the General Assembly.


                                  For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that local governmental activity on wet-
                                  lands over which the local government has an easement or right-of-way is authorized by
                                  ï¿½ 30) of the local wetlands zoning ordinance contained in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5.1



























                                  'As previously stated, this conclusion is based upon an assumption that the activity falls within the permis-
                                  sible limits and terms of a properly recorded deed or condemnation proceeding.






                                                                                                                                                17






              Attorney General Opinions



              Parliamentary Procedure. local Wetlands Board May Adopt Proce-
              dures Not Inconsistent With Local Ordinances or State Law.


                                                     February 27, 1984


              The Honorable Owen B. Pickett
              Member, House of Delegates


                   You have requested my opinion on the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board's proposed proce-
                   dure for acting on permit applications under Chapter 2.1 Q 62.1-13.1 et seq.) of Title
                   62.1 of the Code of Virginia (the "Wetlands Act").


                   Virginia Beach has adopted the wetlands ordinance found in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 and has recent-
                   ly expanded its wetlands board to seven members as authorized by ï¿½ 62.1-13.6. Section
                   62.1-13.5(4)(a) provides that anyone wishing to use or develop wetlands for purposes
                   not otherwise permitted must file an application for a permit with the local wetlands
                   board. Section 62.1-13.5(6) requires the wetlands board to hold a public hearing within
                   60 days of receipt of the application. Section 62.1-13.7 provides that a quorum of four
                   members of a seven-member board is required for conducting a hearing or "taking of
                   any action." Section 62.1-13.5(7) provides that:


                        "In acting on any application for a permit, the board shall grant the application
                        upon the concurring vote of .. four members of a seven-member board.... The board
                        shall make its determination within thirty days from the hearing. If the board fails
                        to act within such time, the application shall be deemed approved." (Emphasis
                        added.)


                   Before considering the proposed procedure, it is helpful to consider the legislature's
                   policy in the Wetlands Act. Section 62.1-13.1 sets forth this policy as one of preserving
                   an irreplaceable resource and accommodating necessary development in a manner con-
                   sistent with such preservation. To ensure this protection, the legislature required a
                   majority vote of the whole board rather than just a majority vote of a quorum, for per-
                   mits to alter wetlands. At the same time, the legislature wished to protect wetlands
                   owners from indefinite procedural delays, by providing in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5(7) for the automat-
                   ic approval of applications not acted on within thirty days after the hearing. With the
                   legislative intent in mind, I turn to the proposal.


                   As I understand the proposed procedure enclosed with your request, the chairman of
                   the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board will call for a vote on an application after all per-
                   sons have been heard and all deliberations completed. If four members of the seven-
                   member board vote favorably, the application is approved, and the permit will issue. If




              18






                                                                                          Attorney General Opinions




                            less than four members vote favorably, even if there should be a 3-2 or a 3-1 majority
                            for approval, or a 3-3 or 2-2 tie, the application will be deemed to be denied because of
                            the lack of the statutorily required four concurring votes.


                            The taking of a vote on the application will be considered "acting" on the application,
                            and the resulting approval or non-approval will be considered the "determination" of the
                            board. If the application receives less than four concurring votes, this will be considered
                            a board determination to deny the permit, and the board will so notify the applicant
                            within forty-eight hours of its determination as required by SS 62.113.5(7). The vote on
                            the application must, of course, be taken when there is a quorum present and must be
                            taken within the applicable time limits.


                            Section 62.1-13.7 provides in part that "the board may make, alter and rescind rules
                            and forms for its procedures, consistent with ordinances of the county, city or town and
                            general laws of the Commonwealth, including this chapter." Inasmuch as this section
                            specifies that wetlands boards may make their own rules, the procedures selected by
                            the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board will comply with statutory requirements if they are
                            consistent with local ordinances, general laws of the Commonwealth and Chapter 2.1 of
                            Title 62. 1. The procedures are not inconsistent with any requirements of local ordinan-
                            ces or general law of which I am familiar. They are also consistent with the require-
                            ments of the Wetlands Act.


                            The procedures meet the requirement of ï¿½ 62.1-13.5(7) that the board grant the applica-
                            tion upon the concurring votes of four members of the seven-member board. Even if
                            there is no such concurring vote, the procedures are sufficient to comply with the ï¿½ 62.1-
                            13.5(7) requirement of taking action or making a determination within thirty days of
                            the public hearing. The "action" is the board's vote. The "determination" required by
                            that section is the action of granting or denying the application.


                            Section 62.1-13.5(7) contains no language expressly referring to the denial of an applica-
                            tion. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that an application which is not approved by at
                            least four concurring votes is necessarily denied. There is a third possibility, however,
                            and that is when the board does not bring an application to a vote with a quorum
                            present within the time limit. In that case the board has not taken any action, and the
                            application is deemed approved 30 days after the hearing.


                            I am, therefore, of the opinion that the procedure proposed by the Virginia Beach Wet-
                            lands Board is consistent with its authority to form its own procedures and complies
                            with the general laws of the Commonwealth including the Wetlands Act.






                                                                                                                   19






            Attorney General Opinions



            Wetlands. Local Wetlands Board May Consider Effects on Wetlands
            of Portions of Project Beyond Jurisdictiom


                                                    October 31, 1984


            The Honorable William A. Pruitt
            Commissioner, Marine Resources Commission


                  You have requested my opinion regarding the authority of a local wetlands board to
                  regulate the length of structures known as groins (structures built out from a shore to
                  prevent erosion) and other similar structures constructed as part of a single project ex-
                  tending beyond the wetlands in both the intertidal zone and below mean low water.


                  The Wetlands Act, ï¿½ 62.1-13.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, provides for local wetlands
                  boards and gives them authority to regulate wetlands which are contiguous to and
                  above mean low water, including the intertidal zone.

                                       I

                  The lands below mean low water, unless previously conveyed away, are owned by the
                  Commonwealth. See ï¿½ 62. 1- 1. Section 62.1-3 allows certain uses of these lands and gives
                  the Marine Resources Commission (the "Commission") authority to permit other uses.
                  See 1981-1982 Report of the Attorney General at 242.


                  The Wetlands Act prohibits -any use or development of wetlands without a wetlands per-
                  mit issued by a wetlands board. See ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.9 and 62.1-13.5(4)(a). A wetlands board
                  must base its decision to issue or deny a permit on the impact the use or development
                  will have on the public health and welfare as expressed by the Act's policy of preserving
                  wetlands. Sections 62.1-13.5(9) and 62.1-13. 1. The Commission is empowered by ï¿½ 62. 1-
                  13.13 to modify, remand or reverse the decision of the wetlands board. See 1982-1983
                  Report of the Attorney General at 76 1.


                  In granting or denying any permit for the use of State-owned bottom lands, the Commis-
                  sion must consider the effect of the project "upon the wetlands of the Commonwealth,
                  except when its effect upon said wetlands has been or will be determined under the
                  provisions of Chapter 2.1 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.1 et seq.) [The Wetlands Act]...." Section 62.1-3, 16.


                  By reading a wetlands board's authority to carry out the Commonwealth's strong policy
                  favoring wetlands preservation, together with the deference to Wetlands Act decisions
                  contained in ï¿½ 62.1-3, 1 conclude that a local wetlands board should consider the impact
                  on wetlands from the total project, including that portion of the project resting on suba-
                  queous lands beyond the wetland. Although not expressly authorized to do so by
                  statute, regulation of the length of a structure is vital to exercising the authority to




            20






                                                                                         Attorney General Opinions



                           regulate the use of wetlands. Whether such consideration will require imposition of a
                           limitation on the length of structures located below mean low water is a factual deter-
                           mination which must be made on a case-by-case basis. That decision is subject to review
                           by the Commission. If the wetlands board does not consider the wetlands impact of the
                           total project, the Commission must consider, pursuant to ï¿½ 62.1-3, the effect of such a
                           subaqueous project on wetlands, when it determines whether or not to grant a permit to
                           use subaqueous lands.


                           I am, therefore, of the opinion that a local wetlands board is authorized to regulate the
                           length of a structure which is constructed through both the intertidal zone and channel-
                           ward of mean low water, subject to superior jurisdiction of the Commission to modify or
                           reverse the decision.



















































                                                                                                                 21







            Attorney General Opinions



            Wetlands. Repair or Replacement of Bulkheads Exempt from Permit
            Requirements as Long as No Additional Wetlands Covered.


                                                   December 19, 1984


            The Honorable John H. Foote
            County Attorney for Prince William County


                 This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of the Wetlands Act, ï¿½
                 62.1-13.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, as it pertains to bulkheads and their repair.
                 Your inquiries are motivated by a proposal to completely remove an existing wooden
                 bulkhead and replace it with new metal materials. Such operation will disturb non-
                 vegetated wetlands. You did not indicate if additional wetlands will be covered by the
                 construction.


                 Section 62.1-13.5 authorizes counties, cities and towns to adopt a wetlands zoning or-
                 dinance. The provisions are specified in the statute. Section 3 of the ordinance exempts
                 certain uses of wetlands from the necessity of obtaining a wetlands permit. It reads, in
                 pertinent part, as follows:


                      "The following uses of and activities on wetlands are permitted, if otherwise per-
                      mitted by law:




                      N The normal maintenance, or addition to presently existing roads, highways,
                      railroad beds, or the facilities of any person, firm, corporation, utility, federal,
                      State, county, city or town abutting on or crossing wetlands, provided that no
                      waterway is altered and no additional wetlands are covered...." (Emphasis added.)


                 Your first inquiry is whether bulkheads are "facilities," as described in SS 3(h) of an or-
                 dinance authorized in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5. When reading a statute, the general rule is that its
                 words should be given their usual,. commonly understood meaning. See The Covington
                 Virginian v. Woods, 182 Va. 538, 29 S.E.2d 406 (1944); 1980-1981 Report of the Attor-
                 ney General at 58. The commonly understood meaning of "facility" is "something .. that
                 is built...installed, or established to perform some particular function...." Webster's
                 Third New International Dictionary 812 (1968). The same publication defines
                 "bulkhead" as a device designed to resist pressure or shut off water, especially "the
                 retaining wall along a waterfront." A bulkhead is commonly used to perform a par-
                 ticular function: to prevent the erosion of the bank of a waterway or to contain fill
                 material; accordingly, a bulkhead comes within the broad definition of "facility." I am,




            22







                                                                                        Attorney General Opinions


  41                      therefore, of the opinion that bulkheads are included within the word "facilities" in ï¿½
                          3(h), and that the normal maintenance, repair or additions to a bulkhead would be per-
                          mitted under that section if no further wetlands were covered.


                          Your second question is whether the phrase "normal maintenance, repair or addition to"
                          in ï¿½ 3(h) would include the complete replacement or reconstruction of a bulkhead in the
                          same location. It is my understanding that such replacement may disturb existing non-
                          vegetated wetlands, but you did not state whether it will result in the covering of any
                          additional wetlands. The answer to your inquiry hinges upon that fact.


                          The exemption contained in ï¿½ 3(h) applies not only to maintenance and repair but also
                          to an "addition to" a facility, the key condition being that "no additional wetlands are
                          covered." I am advised that when a bulkhead begins to suffer serious deterioration, a
                          common practice is to completely replace it. The replacement may occupy the exact loca-
                          tion or it may be constructed seaward of the existing bulkhead. If not built on the same
                          location, it would necessarily mean that additional wetlands will be covered by the
                          facility.


                          I am, therefore, of the opinion that replacement of a bulkhead is within the contempla-
                          tion of "normal maintenance, repair or addition to presently existing ... facilities...." If,
                          however, any additional wetlands will be covered, such replacement will require a wet-
                          lands permit inasmuch as it would not then be exempted as provided in ï¿½ 3(h) of the
                          wetlands ordinance.


































                                                                                                                 23






               Attorney General Opinions



               Counties, Cities and Towns. Zoning. Restrictions on Private,
               Noncommercial Piers Constructed By Riparian Landowners.
               Permissible Exercise of Zoning Power.


                                                          October 22, 1985


               The Honorable W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
               Member, House of Delegates


                     You inquire as to a local governing body's authority to regulate, by zoning ordinance,
                     private, noncommercial piers constructed by riparian landowners beyond the mean low
                     water line of their properties into State waters. You also inquire as to other sources of
                     regulation affecting riparian landowners who wish to construct private, noncommercial
                     piers.


                     There are three possible sources of regulation at the State and local level, including the
                     local governing body, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission ("VMRC"), and the
                     .local Wetlands Board.'


                     Comprehensive zoning powers have been delegated by statute to counties- and munic-
                     ipalities. See Art, 8, Ch. 11, Title 15. 1 of the Code of Virginia, ï¿½ 15.1-486 et seq. Section
                     15.1-486 authorizes local governing bodies to restrict and otherwise regulate:


                           "(a) The use of land, buildings, structures and other premises for agricultural, busi-
                           ness, industrial, residential, flood plain and other specific uses;


                           (b) The size, height, area, bulk, location, erection, construction, reconstruction, al-
                           teration, repair, maintenance, razing, or removal of structures;


                           (c) The areas and dimensions of land, water, and air space to be occupied by build-
                           ings, structures and uses...." (Emphasis added.)









                     'A ripaTian landowner must also comply with the general permit requirements of the United States Army
                     Corps of Engineers.







               24






                                                                                             Attorney General Opinions




                           The purpose of zoning ordinances is to promote the health, safety or general welfare of
                           the public. Among the purposes to be considered by such ordinances are:


                                 "M to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire,
                                 flood and other damages;




                                 (3) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community;




                                 (6) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue
                                 density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available,
                                 obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or
                                 loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers...."


                           Section 15.1-489.


                           A prior Opinion of this Office addressed the similar question of whether a local gov-
                           ernment may enact a zoning ordinance restricting the erection of structures on the
                           beaches and shores of the locality. The Opinion concludes that such a restriction is per-
                           missible and consistent with the purposes for which a zoning ordinance may be enacted.
                           See 1977-1978 Report of the Attorney General at 518     .2 In my opinion, a local govern-
                           ment may, by ordinance, reasonably regulate the construction of private, noncommer-
                                                                                                                    3
                           cial piers, consistent with the purposes for which zoning ordinances may be enacted      .











                           2COmpare 1983-1984 Report of the Attorney General at 475 (flood plain regulations in local zoning ordinances
                           which restrict property development not facially invalid).

                           3As described in the concluding paragraph of this Opinion, the locality's zoning regulations must be
                           reasonable. They may not be arbitrary. If a landowner believes the zoning ordinance to be arbitrary, he may
                           seek judicial review in an appropriate proceeding.






                                                                                                                       25






              Attorney General Opinions




                     Accord People v. Anton, 431 N.Y.S.2d 807, 105 Misc.2d 124 (1980); Harbor Island, Etc.
                     v. Bd. of Cty. Comrs, 407 A.2d 738 (Md. 1979); Itasca County v. Rodenz, 268 N.W.2d
                     423 (Minn. 1978); Town of Islip v. Powell, 358 N.Y.S.2d 985, 78 Misc.2d 1007 (1974);
                     Brady v. Board ofAppeals of Westport, 204 N.E.2d 513 (Mass. 1965).4


                     The General Assembly also has enacted in Title 62.1 a comprehensive statutory scheme
                     concerning the uses of watercourses and wetlands, and the Commonwealth's policies
                     concerning such uses. Certain of the materials which were provided to you suggest that
                     a local governing body has no authority to regulate private, noncommercial piers be-
                     cause such structures are statutorily authorized and exempted from regulation by any
                     local wetlands board. See ï¿½ 62.1-13.5. 1 do not share that conclusion.


                     A riparian landowner has a common law rightto construct a pier or wharf opposite his
                     riparian lands, subject to reasonable regulation by the State. See Grinels v. Daniel, 110
                     Va. 874, 877, 67 S.E. 534 (1910); Taylor v. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 759, 771, 47 S.E.
                     875 (1904); 1975-1976 Report of the Attorney General at 215. This common law right
                     has been codified in ï¿½ 62.1-164 as the right to erect a private, noncommercial pier or
                     wharf in a watercourse opposite the land, subject to the conditions that navigation not
                     be obstructed nor the private rights of any person injured. The existence of a riparian
                     landowner's right to "wharf out" is not absolute under the common law or under ï¿½ 62. 1-
                     164. Where the legislature has delegated to localities the authority to regulate the
                     rights of riparian landowners, such regulation is not inconsistent with ï¿½ 62.1-164.


                     Section 62.1-3(10) provides statutory authorization for "the placement of private piers
                     for noncommercial purposes by owners of the riparian lands in the waters opposite such
                     riparian lands, provided such private shall not extend beyond the navigation line or law-
                     ful private pier lines established by proper authority." (Emphasis added.) This authority
                     operates to exempt private piers from the permit requirements of VMRC for encroach-
                     ments on subaqueous beds which are the property of the Commonwealth.










                     4Section 15.1-1031 provides that the boundary of every county, city or town bordering on the Chesapeake Bay
                     and its tidal tributaries or the Atlantic Ocean shall embrace all wharves, piers and docks. See also ï¿½ 15.1-11.3,
                     which authorizes counties, cities and towns to adopt ordinances requiring the removal, repair or securing of
                     wharves and piers which might constitute an obstruction or hazard.







              26






                                                                                            Attorney General Opinions



                           Section 62.1-13.5 sets out a "Wetlands Zoning Ordinance" which may be adopted by a
                           local governing body. Section 3 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance provides, in pertinent
                           part, as follows:


                                "The following uses of and activities on wetlands are permitted, if otherwise per-
                                mitted by law:


                                (a) The construction and maintenance of noncommercial catwalks, piers, boat-
                                houses, boat shelters, fences, duckblinds, wildlife management shelters,
                                footbridges, observation decks and shelters and other similar structures; provided
                                that such structures are so constructed on pilings as to permit the reasonably un-
                                obstructed flow of the tide and preserve the natural contour of the wetlands...."
                                (Emphasis added.)


                           Those uses permitted by ï¿½ 3 of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance are exempted from the
                           application and permit process set out in ï¿½ 4. The exemption of private piers from the
                           permit requirements of VMRC and the permit process under a local Wetlands Zoning
                           Ordinance is based on the legislative determination that piers and other structures
                           built on pilings permit the continued flow of the tide and preserve the contour of the
                           wetlands. Also, such structures are generally small, isolated structures which are used
                           intermittently and which would have minimal effect on the wetlands. See 1982-1983
                           Report of the Attorney General at 765. Finally, they must be otherwise permitted by
                           law.


                           To summarize, in enacting ï¿½ 62.1-164, the General Assembly intended to preserve the
                           common law right of riparian landowners to erect private, noncommercial piers and
                           wharves, subject to reasonable State regulation. Private piers are exempted by ï¿½ 62. 1-
                           3(10) from VMRC permit requirements which restrict most uses which encroach on sub-
                           aqueous beds owned by the Commonwealth. Under a Wetlands Zoning Ordinance
                           adopted by a locality, a private pier is a use of right and, therefore, is exempt from the
                           application and permit procedure of that particular ordinance. See ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 (ï¿½ï¿½ 3 and
                           4). In ï¿½ 15.1-486(c), however, the General Assembly has delegated to localities the au-
                           thority through zoning ordinances to regulate water space to be occupied by structures
                           and uses.


                           It is a basic rule of statutory construction that when construing statutes on the same
                           subject matter in pari materia, the statutes should be hormonized if possible. See, e.g.,
                           1982-1983 Report of the Attorney General at 484. Construing the above statutes togeth-
                           er in accordance with this basic rule, I am of the opinion that the regulation of private,
                           noncommercial piers and wharves is a permissible exercise of a locality's zoning power,
                           subject to the same requirements as to reasonableness and constitutional limitations as




                                                                                                                       27






            Attorney General Opinions



                  are other zoning restrictions.5 See generally 1983-1984 Report of the Attorney General,
                  supra note 2. In the event a riparian landowner is subject to arbitrary or unreasonable
                  action by zoning officers or subject to an arbitrary or unreasonable provision of a zoning
                  ordinance, he may apply for judicial review. See City of Richmond v. County Board, 199
                  Va. 679, 687, 101 S.E.2d 641 (1958).
































                  5A related question is whether local limitations on a riparian landowners right to construct private, noncom-
                  mercial piers are inconsistent with the principle that the property of the Commonwealth is not subject to local
                  zoning restrictions. See Reports of the Attorney General: 1981-1982 at 467; 1971-1972 at 103. As noted above,
                  the subaqueous beds of the bays, rivers, creeks and shores of the sea are the property of the Commonwealth
                  unless conveyed by special grant. See ï¿½ 62.1-1. Riparian landowners, however, have substantial property
                  rights derived from their status. These rights include the right to "wharf out," discussed above, and to sever
                  and alienate riparian rights as a separate property interest. See Marine Resources Commission v. Forbes, 214
                  Va. 109, 197 S.E.2d 195 (1973); Thurston v. City of Portsmouth, 205 Va. 909, 140 S.E.2d 678 (1965). The char-
                  acter of an area could not be preserved if a riparian landowner were to be permitted to use property rights
                  derived from his status to circumvent other validly enacted limitations on his property rights. Compare Har-
                  bor Island, Etc., 407 A.2d at 747. In other words, the State's use of State-owned bottom is not subject to local
                  regulation, but the exercise of a riparian landowner's property rights which encroach on State-owned bottom
                  is validly subject to local regulation.






            28






                                                                                          Attorney General Opinions



                    Waters, Ports And Harbors: Wetlands - Coastal Primary Sand Dune
                    Protection Act.


                          No conflict exists between compliance with time requirements to hold hearing and
                          make decision on application under Wetlands Act and concurrent prosecution of viola-
                          tions; issuance of permit and decision to prosecute separate issues.


                                                             August 5, 1988


                    The Honorable Robert Tata
                    Member, House of Delegates


                          You ask two questions concerning how the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board (the
                          "Board") should administer the Wetlands Act, ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.1 through 62.1-13.20 of the
                          Code of Virginia, and the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protection Act, ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.21
                          through 62.1-13.28, in light of the time requirements established in these Acts and the
                          need to take enforcement action against persons who are in violation of either Act.


                          1. Applicable Statutes


                          The Wetlands Act and the Sand Dune Protection Act are similar in structure, and ï¿½
                          62.1-13.27 provides for enforcement of the Sand Dune Protection Act under Wetlands
                          Act provisions.


                          Section 62.1-13.9 of the Wetlands Act prohibits any person from conducting "any ac-
                          tivity which would require a permit under a wetlands zoning ordinance unless he has a
                          permit therefor." Section 4(a) of the Wetlands Zoning Ordinance in ï¿½ 62.1-13.5 (the "Or-
                          dinance") provides that 'TaIny person who desires to use or develop any wetland ... other
                          than for those activities specified in ï¿½ 3 ... shall first file an application for a permit with
                          the wetlands board." The activities specified in ï¿½ 3 of the Ordinance are exempted from
                          the permit requirement. Section 6 of the Ordinance requires the Board to hold a public
                          hearing not later than sixty days after receipt of the application. Section 7 requires the
                          Board to make its decision within thirty days of the hearing. If the Board fails to act in
                          thirty days, the application is deemed approved.


                          Section 62.1-13.18 provides for the enforcement of certain violations of the Wetlands
                          Act.


                               Any person who knowingly, intentionally, negligently or continually violates ... any
                               provision of this chapter or of a wetlands zoning ordinance enacted pursuant to
                               this chapter or any provision of a permit granted by a wetlands board or the [Vir-




                                                                                                                     29






               Attorney General Opinions



                             ginia Marine Resources] Commission pursuant to this chapter shall be guilty of a
                             misdemeanor. Following a conviction, every day the violation continues shall be
                             deemed a separate offense.


                      11. No Conflict Exists Between Compliance with Time Requirements to Hold
                      Hearing and Make Decision on Application Under Wetlands Act and Concur-
                      rent Prosecution of Violations


                      You first ask whether the Board is required to hear applications within the time limits
                      in ï¿½ï¿½ 6 and 7 of the Ordinance if the application is for a nonexempt use or development
                      of a wetland which has already been completed or begun without a permit.


                      It is important to separate the regulatory provisions of the Wetlands Act from its enfor-
                      cement provision. The regulatory provisions require in evaluation of the project, as
                      described in the application, under the standards in the Wetlands Act. Nonexempt
                      construction without a permit is a violation of this Act. See ï¿½ 62.1-13.18. The enforce-
                      ment provision authorizes criminal punishment for such a violation, to encourage com-
                      pliance with the Wetlands Act and to vindicate and maintain the authority of the
                      wetlands program.


                      Except in ï¿½ 4(a) of the Ordinance, which specifies that an application shall "first" be
                      filed, the Wetlands Act provides for applications without referring to whether the ap-
                      plication is filed before or after any nonexempt use or development is begun. Neverthe-
                      less, this Act clearly requires that an application be filed and a permit issued before any
                      nonexempt use or development of a wetland is begun. See ï¿½ 62.1-13.9. it is my opinion,
                      however, that nothing in the Wetlands Act requires that the Board treat a particular ap-
                      plication differently because it was untimely filed. It is further my opinion, therefore,
                      that when an application is filed after any nonexempt use or development of a wetland
                      is begun, the Board must consider that application under the time schedules set forth in
                      ï¿½ï¿½ 6 and 7 of the Ordinance, but that such consideration does not prevent and should
                      not delay any prosecution of the nonexempt use or development under ï¿½ 62.1-13.18.








                      11 am aware that the United States Array Corps of Engineers does not accept applications for such an after-
                      the-fact permit where legal action is deemed appropriate until such legal action has been completed. See 33
                      C.F.R. ï¿½ 326.3(e)(lXii) (1987). A similar policy by the Board, in my opinion, would serve to delay a final resolu-
                      tion of the application and would be contrary to the intent of the Wetlands Act that decisions are to be made
                      within the times specified.






               30






                                                                                                             Attorney General Opinions




                                 You next ask whether the Board is required to hear an application to amend a permit
                                 where the permittee is alleged to have violated the permit and court action is pending.
                                 As discussed above, there is nothing in the Wetlands Act to exempt this type of applica-
                                 tion from the time limits placed on applications in general. It is my opinion, therefore,
                                 that acting on the application within the time limits specified in ï¿½ï¿½ 6 and 7 of the Or-
                                 dinance should have no effect on the court action, since court action concerns a violation
                                 which is alleged to have occurred previously.


                                 HL Issuance of Permit and Decision to Prosecute Are Separate Issues


                                 In summary, the failure to secure the necessary permits in the facts you present is a
                                 violation of the Wetlands Act which may be referred for prosecution pursuant to ï¿½ 62. 1-
                                 13.18. Whether a permit should issue is a separate question which should be deter-
                                 mined in the most efficient manner possi          ble as provided in the Wetlands Act. If the
                                 application is denied, and the violation i s not corrected, a suit may be brought pur-
                                 suant to SS 62.1-13.18:1 to enjoin the violation.         2
























                                 21 also note that ï¿½ 8 of the Ordinance grants the Board, after a hearing, the authority to suspend or revoke a
                                 permit if the permittee has not complied with its terms and conditions. See 1978-1979 Atty Gen. Ann. Rep.
                                 326,327.







                                                                                                                                            31







 0







                     A Review of Current
                  .Enforcement Procedures

                  in Light of Recent Changes

                         to Title 62.1

 0                  of the Code of Virginia













 0






           A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                 Introduction


                 Recent changes in legislation regarding enforcement authority under Title 62.1 present
                 an excellent opportunity for a review of our current enforcement procedures as well as a
                 chance to highlight the changes that result from additions to the law. This review is
                 designed to be used as an enforcement guide and should not take the place of advice
                 from knowledgeable counsel.


                 All of the amendments and additions included in Chapter 811 Acts of Assembly 1990
                 (Senate Bill 183) as found in Attachment A, are contained in Title 62. 1 of the Code of
                 Virginia and affect the regulation of subaqueous lands, tidal wetlands and coastal
                 primary sand dunes, Chapters 1, 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Specifically, those amend-
                 ments provide the Commission with the authority to adopt regulations, and the Com-
                 mission or local wetlands board with the authority to issue restoration orders and
                 assess civil charges for violations of the applicable statutes.

                 In the past, violations of the aforementioned Code sections 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 actions with the intent of producing a lasting impres-
                 sion through public admonishment. The prospect of prosecution within the judicial Sys-
                 tem was previously and remains a viable option. Unfortunately, the inherent problems
                 associated with preparing a case to go to Circuit Court remain unchanged. The dif-
                 ference now is that once in Circuit Court, a judge can levy a civil penalty up to $25,000
                 for each day of a violation. This hopefully will serve as a strong deterrent to violating
                 the law and a powerful incentive to resolve the matter at an administrative level. In
                 that regard, Section 62.1-13.18:2 grants the Commission and wetlands boards the
                 authority to assess civil charges of up to $10,000 per violation. Civil charges 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 disincen-
                 tives against violating the law while at the same time providing the impetus to resolve
                 these issues at an administrative level. A $10,000 civil charge may seem extreme but
                 when compared to perhaps a $100,000 civil penalty ($25,000 X each day in the violationj
                 four days in this example) the more cost-effective solution remains at the administra-
                 tive level. It should be noted that civil charges may be in addition to the cost of any res-
                 toration ordered under Section 62.1-13.16:1(C).


                 The adoption of financial disincentives not only commands the attention of those parties
                 involved in coastal development but also those responsible for administering Virginia's
                 coastal law. Enforcement procedures within Virginia@s 32 wetland boards has in the
                 past reflected the varying degrees of complexity found in each local government. Unify-
                 ing these procedures to conform to rigid standards is perhaps not desirable but a review




           2






                                                                    A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                         of the basic enforcement components does provide a basis from which localities can
                         refine an enforcement mechanism which is legally complete and reflects the unique
                         character of each locality.



                         Enforcement


                         Figure I - Enforcement Procedures, represents a generalized flowchart outlining
                         the enforcement components incorporated into Title 62.1 of the Code. Because different
                         Code sections embody different enforcement components, this unified approach is in-
                         tended to be a guide and is not a substitute for a more comprehensive review and under-
                         standing of the applicable Code sections. A discussion of each of these components
                         combined with relevant reporting requirements will hopefully solidify the enforcement
                         procedure within the context of your individual needs.

                         Report of a violation, either through citizen response or staff awareness, immediately
                         calls into question the test of imminent danger and significant harm. If the potential
                         violation appears to involve substantial impact to natural resources and further delay
                         could lead to increased despoliation, it may be necessary to forgo standard notification
                         requirements and serve a Stop Work Order as specified in Section 62.1-13.16:1(B).
                         Otherwise, standard operating procedures dictate that prior to inspection, notice shall
                         be provided to the resident owner, occupier, or operator. If notice is given verbally, it
                         should be followed with written correspondence. The individual(s) involved should be
                         given an opportunity to accompany the site inspector during their inspection.

                         If it is determined that there is failure to comply with a permit or that unauthorized ac-
                         tivities have transpired, a Sworn Complaint (Attachment B) from the designated enfor-
                         cement officer should be completed and presented to the board chairman. Upon receipt
                         of a Sworn Complaint, the board chairman issues a Notice to Comply (Attachment C),
                         indicating the measures needed for compliance and a specified time within which such
                         measures shall be completed. Care should also be taken at this time to completely docu-
                         ment the violation. The violation worksheet (Attachment D) contains pertinent ques-
                         tions which should be answered and may be helpful to ensure that all necessary
                         information is obtained.


                         Compliance in most cases involves one of three potential approaches:

                              A. Voluntary Restoration


                              B. Request for Permit Modification


                              C. Application for After-the-Fact Permit








                                                                                                                3






                 A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures





                                                        Figure 1 - Enforcement Procedures






                                                                                   Violation


                                                                                       I
                                           Yes                          F    Imminent Danger or                                   No
                                                                               Significant Harm



                                                                                                                              Notice of
                                                                                                                               Inspection

                                                                                          F                                    Inspection

                                                                                     Violation




                                                                              Unauthorized Activity/
                                                                             Permit Non-Compliance
                                                                               ___F
                                                                             Sworn Complaint From
                                                                               Enforcement Officer




                                   Non-Complian                                  Notice to Comply                            Compliance
                                                                                                                                   I

                                                                                                                   Voluntary Restoration Permit
                                                                                                                      Nbdification Application




                                                                                 Stop Work Order




                                                                                                                                        Notice of
                                                                                                                                 Restoration Hearing


                                     Circuit Court                                                                                 Restoration Order






                                                                       A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures



                         Non-compliance will result in the issuance of a Stop Work Order (Attachment E) from
                         the board chairman. The affect of a Stop Work Order is directly related to the desired
                         outcome of any given situation. A Stop Work Order is usually viewed administratively
                         as an "attention getter" designed to reinforce the need for compliance with the law. As
                         such, Stop Work Orders can be issued in conjunction with the Notice to Comply. In the
                         absence of compliance, the Stop Work serves as the precursor to application for ap-
                         propriate relief to a Circuit Court in the jurisdiction wherein the violation was alleged
                         to have occurred.


                         The Sworn Compliant is an important component of the violation procedure. While not
                         required under Section 62.1-13.16:1(A), the Sworn Complaint is an integral part of the
                         enforcement proceeding under Sections 62.1-13.16:1(B), and (C). In fact, the Sworn Com-
                         plaint is required as a precursor to the issuance of a Stop Work Order or a Restoration
                         Order.


                         Section 62.1-13.16:1(C) provides the boards with additional remedies under the law in
                         the form of a Restoration Order. The general format of this order is contained in Attach-
                         ment F. The Restoration Order, while it falls near the bottom of the flowchart, should
                         not be considered a position of last resort. In cases where restoration is a desirable out-
                         come, a Notice to Comply with voluntary restoration may preclude a formal restoration
                         hearing and the issuance of a Restoration Order.

                         A restoration hearing is appropriate in instances where substantial damage to resour-
                         ces, beyond that which normally have been permitted, has occurred. Even in instances
                         where voluntary restoration is deemed a viable alternative, the Restoration Order may
                         be useful in specifying the details necessary to ensure an effective restoration effort.

                         A Restoration Order can only result from the issuance of a Sworn Complaint along with
                         the appropriate 30 day notice to the affected party including the time, place and pur-
                         pose of the restoration hearing. Such an order shall require the submission of a monitor-
                         ing plan to ensure successful re-establisbment of the affected resources (see monitoring
                         plan requirements, Attachment G). While the general format and conditions of a
                         monitoring plan are under development, each plan may have to be tailored to individual
                         circumstances and site constraints. It xnay also require a prepaid contract acceptable to
                         the board be in affect for the purpose of carrying out the Monitoring Plan. In addition,
                         the board may require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with
                         surety and conditions satisfactory to securing compliance with the conditions set forth
                         in the Restoration Order. Failure to complete the required restoration constitutes a
                         separate violation.












                                                                                                                      5






            A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures


                 Compliance Monitoring                                                                                           40

                 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 pre-
                 viously associated with enforcement efforts remain today. While it may prove relatively
                 easy to determine that a bulkhead was constructed without authorization, it is some-
                 what harder to determine the extent of encroachment beyond that which was
                 authorized by a particular permit. The basis for such determinations ultimately hinges
                 on the permit drawings that were made a part of the permit document.

                 As such, it may be in the best interest of each local board to adopt a more demanding
                 stance in determining adequacy of application drawings. Effective enforcement of per-
                 mit noncompliance can only be achieved with more rigorous standards. To this end, The
                 Wetlands Advisory Program at VIMS has produced a paper titled "Monitoring of Com-
                 pliance with Permits Granted by Local Wetlands Boards" (Attachment H). The intent is
                 to provide insight into the nuts and bolts of compliance monitoring while providing tech-
                 nical formats for application drawings. Incorporating these mechanisms into applica-
                 tion requirements will greatly assist boards in resolving questions of non-compliance.


                 Civil Penalties and Charges


                 The major thrust of SB183 was the addition of teeth into what many perceived was an
                 exercise in administrative futility. The provision of penalties and charges, however,
                 does nothing to ease the burden of identifying and legally documenting the existence of
                 a violation. As discussed above, application drawings become the only reliable standard
                 by which permit compliance can be determined.

                 The enforcement flowchart identifies the 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 Sworn Compliant is issued, fol-
                 lowed by a Notice to Comply. In cases where restoration is a desirable conclusion, the in-
                 dividual has the option of restoring an area to preexisting conditions. (Voluntary
                 restoration in this manner may still benefit from a restoration hearing to establish the
                 formal conditions for restoration. A minimum 30 day notice of a restoration hearing ap-
                 plies.) Otherwise, application for a permit modification or after-the-fact approval is
                 necessary.


                 Any violation, whether voluntarily restored or not, should be considered an agenda item
                 and fully discussed during a regularly scheduled meeting of the wetlands board. Stand-
                 ard notification procedures apply. The party involved should be contacted and informed
                 that the violation in question will be discussed at the following board meeting and that
                 their presence is requested.





            6







                                                                    A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                       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). These are the only options available under this Code section.
                       The ramifications of each needs to be clearly explained to the individual(s) in violation.
                       only with the individual's concurrence can the board assess a civil charge.

                       Section 62.1-13.18:2 indicates that a board may order a one-time payment of civil char-
                       ges for each violation not to exceed $10,000. Table I - Civil Charge Determination,
                       has been developed to ensure continuity between all of the boards as they arrive at an
                       actual dollar amount representative of the violation in question. This assessment is
                       designed to contain the flexibility necessary for each individual board to arrive at a con-
                       clusion 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.




                                               Table I - Civil Charge Determination

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

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

                                                            Minimal         $500     $1,000       $1,500

                                                                           Minor    Moderate       Major

                                                         Relative Degree of Deviation or Non-compliance



                       Environmental Impact in this table refers less to the actual square footage of area im-
                       pacted and more to the relative environmental value of the resource lost. The values for
                       each wetland type are found on Page 38 of the Wetlands Guidelines. For example, 100
                       square feet of impact to two stands of vegetated wetlands may be viewed differently
                       depending on the dominant plant species. A Group One wetland 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 impacts might at first appear relatively equal.

                       Relative Degree of Deviation or Non-compliance refers to the extent of a violation.
                       This could include not only the magnitude of the area of impact but other mitigating fac-
                       tors such as:












                                                                                                                7






            A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                          Good Faith
                          Degree of Willfulness
                          History of Non-compliance
                          Cooperation

                 (Ignorance of the law should not be considered a mitigating factor.)



                 Conclusion


                 While it is appealing to believe that successful implementation of these Code changes
                 will solve all your problems with respect to wetland violations and after-the-fact applica-
                 tions, such a situation is 'Unlikely. As long as individuals choose to live along the shores,
                 development activities within this coastal fringe will continue to exert tremendous pres-
                 sure on Virginia's tidal wetlands.

                 The success or failure of these Code changes will be directly related to each of Virginia!s
                 local wetlands boards. Enforcement needs to be accomplished in as uniform and consis-
                 tent a manner as possible. At a minimum, each board should thoroughly review its
                 present enforcement procedures and determine how the current changes need to be in-
                 corporated within their existing administrative infrastructure.

                 This expanded wetlands board power should not be considered as the ultimate answer.
                 A great deal of the problem with enforcement and permit compliance rests in a lack of
                 attention to detail and crossed communication. Remember, "as close to the bank as pos-
                 sible" may be viewed in a variety of ways. It may mean within three feet to the wet-
                 lands board, but it could mean "as far as I care to go" for someone building the structure.


























            8






                                                               A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures



  0











                                              ATTACHMENTS






  0













  0


                                                                                                        9






             A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                                                     ATTACHMENTA


                                                       1990 SESSION


                               VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY - CHAPTER 811



                  An Act to amend and reenact ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.4 and 62.1-13.16.1 of the Code of Virginia and
                  to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 1 of Title 62.1 a section numbered
                  62.1-9. 1, and sections numbered 62.1-13.18.-2 and 62.1-13.27. 1. relating to the restora-
                  tion of habitat; penalties.

                  Approved April 9, 1990

                  Be It enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

                  1. That ï¿½ï¿½ 62.1-13.4 and 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted
                  and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Chapter 1 of 'Btle 62.1 a section
                  numbered 62.1-9.1, and sections numbered 62.1-13.18:2 and 62.1-13.27:1 as follows:

                  ï¿½ 62.1-9.1. Penalties.-A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this
                  chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or fails,
                  neglects or refuses to obey any Commission notice, order, rule, regulation or permit condi-
                  tion authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an appropriate circuit court,
                  be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25, 000 for each day of violation. Such civil
                  penalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be directed to be paid into
                  the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation occurred for the purpose of
                  abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wetlands therein, in such a man-
                  ner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where the violator is the county, city, or
                  town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state
                  treasury.

                  B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
                  consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated
                  or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission order, rule, regulation or permit
                  condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission may provide, in an order issued by
                  the Commission against such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each
                  violation in specific sums, not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Civil charges shall be
                  in lieu of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of
                  this section. Civil charges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the
                  Commission or a wetlands board.


                  ï¿½ 62.1-13.4. Marine Resources Commission to develop guidelines.-In order to implement
                  the policy set forth in ï¿½ 62.1-13.1 and to assist counties, cities or towns in regulation of




            10






                                                                         A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures



                         vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands, the Commission shall with the advice and assis-
                         tance of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, which will evaluate wetlands by type
                         and maintain a continuing inventory of vegetated wetlands, from time to time promul-
                         gate in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (ï¿½ 9-6.14:1 et seq.) guidelines
                         which scientifically evaluate vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands by type and which
                         set forth the consequences of use of these wetlands types. In addition, the Commission
                         may promulgate regulations in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (ï¿½ 9-
                         6.14.,l et seq.) which are necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the
                         provisions of this title. In developing guidelines or regulations, the Commission shall
                         consult with any affected state governmental agency.

                         ï¿½ 62.1-13.16:1. Reporting, site inspections and notice to comply; Commission or Wet-
                         lands Board to issue stop work order or restoration order.-A.-With respect to permits
                         required pursuant to this Chapter, Chapter 1 (ï¿½ 62. 1-1 et. seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62. 1-
                         13.21 et seq.) of this title, the Commissioner or Board Chairman may require of the per-
                         son responsible for carrying out the provisions of the permit such monitoring and
                         reports as they may reasonably deem necessary. With respect to any reported activity
                         not authorized by the aforementioned chapters or with respect to the violation of any
                         permit issued pursuant thereto, they may direct such on-site inspections as are deemed
                         reasonably necessary to determine whether the measures required by the permit are
                         being properly performed, or whether the provisions of the aforementioned chapters are
                         being violated. Prior to conducting such inspections, notice shall be provided to the resi-
                         dent owner, occupier or operator.

                         Such resident owner, occupier or operator shall be given an opportunity to accompany
                         the site inspector. If it is determined that there is a failure to comply with the permit,
                         the Commissioner or Board Chairman shall serve notice upon the person who is respon-
                         sible for carrying out the provisions of the permit at the address specified by him in his
                         application or by delivery at the site of the permitted activities to the person supervis-
                         ing such activities and designated in the permit to receive such notice. Such notice shall
                         set forth the measures needed for compliance and the time within which such measures
                         shall be completed. Upon failure of such person to comply within the specified period,
                         he may be deemed to be in violation of this section and upon conviction shall be subject
                         to the penalties provided in this chapter.

                         B.-Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial violation of this chapter, Chap-
                         ter 1 (ï¿½ 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of this title from the desig-
                         nated enforcement officer, the Commissioner or Board Chairman may, in conjunction
                         with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in subsection A of this section,
                         issue an order requiring all or part of the activities on the site to be stopped until the
                         specified corrective measures have been taken. In the case of an activity not authorized
                         by the aforementioned chapters or where the alleged permit noncompliance is causing,
                         or is in imminent danger of causing, significant harm to the subaqueous bottoms, wet-
                         lands or the coastal primary sand dunes protected by the aforementioned chapters, such





                                                                                                                          11






            A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures



                  an order may be issued without regard to whether the person has been issued a notice
                  to comply as specified in subsection A of this section. Otherwise, such an order may be
                  issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a notice to comply. The
                  order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in ef-
                  fect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending application by the enforc-
                  ing authority, permit holder or the resident owner, occupier or operator for appropriate
                  relief to the circuit court of the jurisdiction wherein the violation was alleged to have oc-
                  curred. Upon completion of corrective action, the order shall immediately be lifted. Noth-
                  ing in this section shall prevent the Commissioner or Board Chairman from taking any
                  other action specified in ï¿½ 62.1-13.16.

                  C. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial violation of this chapter, Chapter 1
                  (ï¿½ 62. 1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (ï¿½ 62.1-13.23 et seq.) of this title from a designated enfor-
                  cement officer, the Commission or a wetlands board may order that the affected site be
                  restored to predevelopment conditions if the Commission or board deems restoration
                  necessary to recover lost resources or to prevent further damage to resources. Such an
                  order shall specify the restoration necessary and establish a reasonable time for its com-
                  pletion. Such orders shall be issued only after hearing with at least thirty days notice to
                  the affected person of the time, place and purpose thereof, and they shall become effective
                  immediately upon issuance by the Commission or board. The Commission or board shall
                  require such scientific monitoring plans as it deems necessary to ensure that such
                  projects result in the successful reestablishment of wetlands, subaqueous bottoms or coas-
                  tal primary sand dunes protected by the aforementioned chapters and may require that a
                  prepaid contract acceptable to the Commission or board be in effect for the purposes of
                  carrying out the scientific monitoring plan. In addition, the Commission or board may re-
                  quire a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with surety and conditions
                  satisfactory to it securing to the Commonwealth compliance with the conditions set forth
                  in the restoration order. The appropriate court, upon petition by the Commission or
                  board, shall have authority to enforce any such restoration order by injunction, man-
                  damus or other appropriate remedy. Failure to complete the required restoration shall
                  constitute a violation of this chapter.

                  D. The duties of the Commissioner or the Board Chairman prescribed in this section
                  may be delegated to their respective designees; however, such respective designees
                  shall not be those persons who are also designated as enforcement officers.

                  ï¿½ 62.1-13.18.2. Penalties.-A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
                  this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or
                  fails, neglects or refuses to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule,
                  regulation or permit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an
                  appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day of
                  violation. Such civil penalities may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be
                  directed to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation oc-
                  curred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wet-




            12






                                                                           A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures



                           lands therein, in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where the
                           violator is the county, city, or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to
                           be paid into the state treasury.

                           B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
                           consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated
                           or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board order, rule,
                           regulation, orpermit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands
                           board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against
                           such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific sums,
                           not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate
                           civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civil charges
                           may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wet-
                           lands board.


                           ï¿½ 62.1-13.2Z:1. Penalties.-A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in
                           this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or
                           fails, neglects or refuses to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule,
                           regulation or permit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an
                           appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day of
                           violation. Such civil penalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be
                           directed to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation oc-
                           curred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wet-
                           lands therein, in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where the
                           violator is the county, city, or town itself, or its agent, the court shalt direct the penalty to
                           be paid into the state treasury.

                           B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the
                           consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated
                           orfailed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board order, rule,
                           regulation, or permit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands
                           board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against
                           such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specirw sums,
                           not to exceed $10,000 for each violation, Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate
                           civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civil charges
                           may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wet-
                           lands board.

















                                                                                                                            13






          A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                                             ATTACEMENT B


                                          SWORNCOMPIAINT


                                                                    No.


                                                                    Date


               Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, I hereby certify that a substan-
               tial violation of Chapter 2.1 of the Code has occurred at

                                                                                     (Location).

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












                                                            (Designated Enforcement Off i-cer)


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



               Appropriate Wetlands Board

                                                              a Notary Public within and for

                                                hereby certify that

               a designated Enforcement Officer whose name is signed to the foregoing, has

               acknowledged the same before me.

                    Given under my hand this - day of                                  19_.

                    My Commission expires:





                                                     Notary Public






           14






                                                                  A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                                                       ATTACHMENT C


                                                    NOTICE TO COMPLY


                                                                                No.


                                                                                Date



                       Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, my field staff inspected your


                       construction site at
                                                                 (Address or Location)


                       on                                     at               having provided notice of such
                                       (Date)                      (Time)

                       inspection to                                     on



                       The following discrepancies were noted:

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









                       These measures are to be completed by
                                                                         (Date)


                            Notice ordered by
                                                                 (Wetlands Board Chairman)

                                  on                            '19-


                            Notice served to
                                                                 (Signature of Person Notified)

                                  on                             iq@



                                                                   (Signature of Enforcement Officer)





                                                                                                             15






            A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                                                 ATTACHMENT D


                                           VIOLATION WORKSHEET


                                                          Time:


                                                          Enforcement Officer:


                                                          Date/Time:

                                                          Others Present:

                                                          Photos:        YES       or        NO


                 1.   Location:




                 2.   When did violation occur (if known):

                 3.   Description of violation:





                 4.   Dimensions of impact area:





                 5.   Environmental setting:





                 6.   Wetland type(s) impacted:

                           Type:                                  Approx. Area:

                           Type:                                  Approx. Area:

                           Type:                                  Approx. Area:

                           Type:                                  Approx. Area:

                 7.   Reason for violation:











            16






                                                             A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures




                                                   ATTACHMENT E


                                                 STOP WORK ORDER


                                                                         No.


                                                                         Date




                      Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, having issued Notice to

                      Comply No.                on -                                 (copy attached),

                      and having received a Sworn Complaint from my designated Enforcement Officer

                      (copy attached), that a substantial violation of Chapter 2. 1 of Title 62. 1 of the Code

                      exists as noted on the attached, you are hereby notified that further work at

                                                                               (site location), must be

                      IMN[EDIATELY DISCONTINUED.



                      Work may be resumed under the following conditions:









                           Ordered by
                                                    (Wetlands Board Chairman)

                               on                         119


                           Notice served to
                                                           (Signature of Person Notified)

                               on                         919-





                                                              (Signature of Enforcement Officer)






                                                                                                   17






           A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures


                                              ATTACHMENT F                                                          0

                                          RESTORATION ORDER



                                          Restoration Order Forthcoming



















                                                                                                                    0













                                                                                                                    0

           18







                                                     A Review of Current Enforcement Procedures


 is                                         ATTACHMENT G

                                 MONITORING PIAN REQUIREMENTS


                                     Monitoring Plan Requirements Forthcoming


















 0













 0


                                                                                    19







 0





                    General Permit VGP #2




                        Commonwealth of Virginia


 0
                  Virginia Marine Resources Commission













 0







               VMRC General Permit




                    VMRC general permit for groin projects designed to control shoreline erosion, which con-
                    form to certain criteria and are undertaken by riparian owners in, on or over state-
                    owned subaqueous lands in waters of the Commonwealth.


                    1. Authority - Effective Date:


                         (a) This General Permit is promulgated pursuant to the authority contained in Sec-
                         tions 28.1-23 and 62.1-3 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.

                         (b) This General Permit conforms with current Commission policy in its estab-
                         lishment of general permits for projects which meet certain restrictive criteria.

                         (c) This General Permit is consistent with the official opinion of the Attorney
                         General issued on October 31, 1984 and attached hereto.

                         (d) The effective date of this General Permit is July 1, 1985.



                    2. Discussion:


                         (a) A principal objective of the permit streamlining efforts of this agency is the
                         achievement of a single permit wherever possible for minor projects with minimal
                         cumulative impacts.

                         (b) The Norfolk District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has approved a general per-
                         mit for groin projects in Virginia waters which are authorized by a local wetlands
                         board and/or VMRC (83 GP-19).


                         (c) Local wetlands boards now process applications and issue permits for groins
                         under the 1982 amendments to the Wetlands Act which placed the non-vegetated
                         in.tertidal area of the "Tidewater Virginia" shoreline under their jurisdiction.

                         (d) The Virginia Institute of Marine Science reviews all applications for groins in
                         tidal waters and submits a written evaluation to local boards for their use in the
                         decision process.

                         (e) All local wetlands board decisions are made at public hearings which are public
                         noticed in accordance with Section 62.1-13.5 of the Code of Virginia.

                         (f) The Commissioner reviews all decisions of local wetlands boards in compliance
                         with Section 62.1-13. 10.


                         (g) Any applicant, or 25 or more freeholders of property within the locality, ag-
                         grieved by a final decision of the local board, whether such decision is affirmative




               2








                                                                                                   VMRC General Permit




                                   or negative in form, may appeal that decision to the Commission which will then
                                   review the local record in accordance with Sections 62.1-13.11, 13.12, and 13.13.

                                   (h) The Commission has promulgated guidelines to assist local boards in determin-
                                   ing the appropriateness and suitability of proposed groin structures.



                              3. Procedures:


                              The Chief, Habitat Management Division will administer the General Permit and as-

                              sure:


                                   (a) That the approved Local-State-Federal Joint Permit application form is com-
                                   pleted and filed in accordance with the instructions contained therein.

                                   (b) That applications are processed in accordance with the procedures established
                                   in Section 62.1-13.5 of the Wetlands Act and the local ordinance adopted there-
                                   under.


                                   (c) That groin projects authorized by this permit achieve the policy and standards
                                   implicit in Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia, reasonably accommodate guidelines
                                   promulgated by the Commission and are consistent with the attached opinion of
                                   the Attorney General.

                                   (d) That groins authorized by local boards meet the following criteria: (1) are of
                                   "low profile" design, (2) do not extend more than 48 feet channelward of mean high
                                   water, (3) if constructed of riprap or stone material do not exceed 6 feet in base
                                   width, and (4) any spur associated with an approved groin must be properly
                                   designed and located.

                              Projects which do not meet the criteria in (a) through (d) above will be processed for an
                              individual VMRC permit with appropriate fees and royalties.



                              4. Authorization/Conditions:


                              All proposals for groin structures to encroach in, on or over State-owned subaqueous
                              land which meet the criteria in paragraph 3 (a) through (d) above are hereby permitted
                              subject to the following standard conditions:

                                   (1) This permit grants no authority to the Permittee to encroach upon property
                                   rights, including riparian rights, of others.







                                                                                                                         3







              VMRC General Permit -




                         (2) The duly authorized agents of the Commission shall have the right to enter
                         upon the premises at reasonable times, for the purposes of inspecting the work
                         being done pursuant to this permit.

                         (3) The Permittee shall comply with the water quality standards as established by
                         the State Water Control Board and all other applicable laws, ordinances, rules and
                         regulations affecting the conduct of the project. The granting of this permit shall
                         not relieve the Permittee of the responsibility of obtaining any and all other per-
                         mits or authority for the project.

                         (4) This permit shall not affect or interf6re with the right vouchsafed to the people
                         of Virginia concerning fowling and the catching of and taking of oysters and other
                         shellfish in and from the bottom of areas and waters not included within the terms
                         of this permit.

                         (5) The Permittee shall, to the greatest extent practicable, minimize the adverse ef-
                         fects of the project upon adjacent properties and wetlands and upon the natural
                         resources of the Commonwealth.


                         (6) This permit may be revoked at any time by the Commission upon the failure of
                         the Permittee to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof or at the will
                         of the General Assembly of Virginia.

                         (7) There is expressly excluded from this permit any portion of the waters within
                         the boundaries of the Baylor Survey (Public Oyster Ground).

                         (8) This permit is subject to any lease of oyster planting ground in effect on the
                         date of this permit. Nothing in this permit shall be construed as allowing the Per-
                         mittee to encroach on any lease without the consent of the leaseholder. The Permit-
                         tee shall be liable for any damages to such lease.

                         (9) The issuance of this permit does not confer upon the Permittee any interest or
                         title to the beds of the waters.


                         (10) All structures authorized by this permit which are not maintained in good
                         repair shall be completely removed from State-owned bottom within three (3)
                         months after notification by the Commission.

                         (11) The Permittee agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Commonwealth of
                         Virginia from any liability arising from the establishment operation or main-
                         tenance of said project.

                         (12) This permit au thorizes no claim to archaeological artifacts which may be en-
                         countered during the course of construction. If, however, archaeological remains
                         are encountered, the Permittee agrees to notify the Commission, who will, in turn,





              4








                                                                                           VMRC General Permit




                                 notify the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission. The Permittee further agrees
                                 to cooperate with agencies of the Commonwealth in the recovery of archaeological
                                 remains if deemed necessary.


                            5. This General Permit should be retained by the Permittee for
                            the life of his project as evidence of authorization.









































                                                                                                                5







 0




                  Criteria for the Placement -
             of Sandy Dredged Material Along
               Beaches in the Commonwealth




                 Virginia Marine Resources Commission

 0
                            VR 450-01-0052

















0





                Sandy Dredged Material


                Section 1                                                                                                   40

                     Objective and Goals


                     A. The objective is to assure that all suitable dredged material is utilized on eroding
                     beach shorelines to the maximum extent practicable.

                     B. In considering dredging permit applications, the Commission will endeavor to:

                          1. Support Section 10.1-704 of the Code of Virginia which provides that the
                          beaches of the Commonwealth be given priority consideration as sites for the dis-
                          posal of that portion of dredged material determined to be suitable for beach
                          nourishment.


                          2. Coordinate and cooperate with the appropriate state and federal agencies to the
                          extent that VMRC regulatory actions can support those agencies in administering
                          House Joint Resolution No. 223, 1987 session, regarding the use of dredged
                          material for beach nourishment.


                          3. Resolve or minimize legal, environmental and engineering problems which can
                          result from inadequate planning of dredged material placement.


                Section 2


                     Purpose


                     The purpose of this is to develop manageable criteria and threshold levels for use by
                     Commission staff in determining which projects justify a requirement for the expendi-
                     ture of funds by an applicant for sediment tests as well as investigation of legal, environ-
                     mental and engineering implications inherent in every dredged material placement
                     proposal.


                Section 3


                     Policy


                     The Commission will strive to achieve maximum beneficial uses of suitable dredged
                     material for those projects which qualify under criteria established herein while protect-




               2






                                                                                                Sandy Dredged Material



                              ing the interests of the Commonwealth in the land and the resources lying channelward
                              of the mean low water shoreline which land and resources are owned by the Common-
                              wealth and are to be held as a common for use by all its citizens.


                         Section 4


                              General Criteria


                              Increasing interest in the beneficial uses of dredged material dictates a more structured
                              approach to the processing of dredging permit applications. Parameters to be con-
                              sidered in attempting to utilize suitable material for beach nourishment are frequently
                              economic, legal, political, or technical, as well as environmental, and most often a com-
                              bination of all these factors.


                              Because of the complexity of interests involved, certain threshold levels are needed to
                              more readily define projects which justify the time and expense of determining whether
                              beach nourishment is a reasonable alternative.


                              The following general criteria should be used to determine candidate projects suitable
                              for detailed evaluation:


                                    1. More than 7,500 cubic yards of material are to be removed and, based on pre-
                                    vious experience, there is a reasonable expectation that usable quantities of
                                    suitable beach nourishment material free from toxic compounds is present in the
                                    material to be dredged.

                                    2. Beaches with a demonstrated need for and capability of accepting all or a part of
                                    the available material are within proximity of the dredging site.

                                    3. The political subdivision within which the potential placement site is located
                                    has expressed an interest in obtaining beach nourishment material.

                                    4. The applicant understands that he will be required to undertake the research
                                    necessary to locate private property owners willing to accept the material if no
                                    publicly owned shoreline is in reasonable proximity.

                                    5. When beach nourishment is incorporated into a dredging project, a more com-
                                    prehensive subsurface investigation plan is required than if dredging is the only
                                    consideration.










                                                                                                                        3





               Sandy Dredged Material



               Section 5.


                    Specific Criteria


                    1. Sufficient borings must be made and analyzed to develop a clear picture of the verti-
                    cal and horizontal limit of sand deposits in the dredging area. Such borings are the
                    responsibility of the dredging applicant.

                    2. Shoreline investigations at the nourishment site must determine the characteristics
                    of the native material, the location of utilities, structures, outfall pipes, property lines
                    along shore transport, and other basic engineering considerations.

                    3. Engineering information must be analyzed to determine acceptable grain size range
                    of fill material, design berm height, width and length, probable fate of the material, ex-
                    pected loss rates and the resulting maintenance requirements.

                    4. Legal easements and public rights-of-way must be obtained from property owners
                    which preserve public use and State ownership of all State-owned submerged land exist-
                    ing channelward of mean low water shoreline prior to the placement of any material.
                    These legal documents are the responsibility of the dredging applicant or property
                    owners, or both.

                    5. The project should be engineered in a manner which results in the least environmen-
                    tal impact while providing an efficient and cost effective construction plan. Considera-
                    tion will be given, but not limited to, the project's potential impacts on existing natural
                    resources and habitats. These include, inter alia, existing finfish, shellfish, turtle and
                    avian species and their critical time periods for spawning, nesting and nursery func-
                    tions in areas of submerged aquatic vegetation, wetlands and submerged or intertidal
                    and beach habitat.

























               4










                              Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Army
                            Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District and the Virginia
                         Marine Resources Commission for the implementation of
                               a Certificate of Compliance with Norfolk District's
                                                       Regional Permit 90-17



                              1. Purpose


                              The United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District (COE) and the Virginia
                              Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) hereby establish cooperative procedures for the
                              implementation of a Certificate of Compliance with Norfolk District's Regional Permit
                              (RP) 90-17. Regional Permit 90-17 regulates the construction, maintenance, and repair
                              of private, non-commercial piers and mooring piles in certain navigable waters of the
                              United States within the Commonwealth of Virginia.



                              11. Procedures


                              Applicants will complete, sign, and submit a copy of the Certificate of Compliance along
                              with their permit application to the VMRC. Applications which have a completed certifi-
                              cate of compliance attached when received at VMRC will be processed without copies of
                              the applications or related correspondence being furnished to the COE.

                              The Certificate of Compliance may be reproduced locally and is approved by the COE
                              for immediate use. The responsibility for certifying compliance with the conditions out-
                              lined in the permit rests with either the applicant or the agent. This certification will
                              constitute legal documentation from the COE that a project meets the conditions of RP
                              90-17. No additional COE documentation will be provided.







                                        ADDITIONAL READING
 0


                                                          Contents


                       Suggested Readings List

                       Virginia Wetlands Historical Summary

                       Informal Suggestions for Conducting a Public Hearing












  0













   0


                         Additional Reading



Anonymous. 1988. Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeak Bay Watershed to
the Year 2020. The report of the 2020 panel to the Chesapeake Executive Council. 52 pp. (avail-
able at many public libraries, Virginia Council on the Environment and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, 60 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401.)

Badger, Curtis. 1978-79. SAltmarsh Ecology, Parts I-IV. Virginia Wildlife 39:(9) and 40:(1,4,8).
(Available at many libraries.)

Conservatin Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda. The Final
Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. 69 pp. (Available from the Conservation Founda-
tion, 1250 24th street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.)

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's U.S. Department of Inte-
rior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 21 pp. (Available from U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, National Wetlands Inventory, St. Petersburg, FL.)

Daiber, Franklin C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
NY, NY.341 pp. (Available in many larger libraries and college libraries.)

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243-1248. (Available at most
larger libraries.)

Horton, Tom 1991. Turning the Tide--Saving the Chesapeake Bay. Island Press Washington,
D.C. 327 pp. (Available from Island Press and many bookstores.)

Leopold, Aldo. 1966, A Sand Conty Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River.
Hallantine Books NY, NY. 295 pp. (Available in many bookstores and libraries.)

Mitsch, Williams J. and James G Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
NY, NY. 537 pp. (Available at college bookstores.)

Niering, William A. 1985. The Audubon Society Nature Guides: Wetlands. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
NY, NY.638 pp. (Available at most bookstores.)

Settle, Fairfax H. 1969. Survey and analysis of changes effected by man on tidal marshes of Vir-
ginia, 1955-1969. Unpublished Master's Thesis. VPI&SU. Blacksburg. 47 pp. (Available on in-
terlibrary loan from VPI&SU.)

Silberhorn, G.M. 1982. Common Plants of the Mid-Atlantic Coast: A Field Guide. The Johns
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore. 256 pp. (Available from VIMS Sea Grant Office and Wil-
liam and Mary Bookstore.)
 





              Additional Reading



              Siry, Joseph V. 1984. Marshes of the Ocean Shore, Development of an Ecological Ethic. Texas
              A&M University Press. 216 pp. [Available at VIMS library.]

              Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. 1988. The Value of Wetlands: A Guide for
              Citizens, Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. Chesapeake, Virginia. 30 pp.
              [Available at Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 723 Woodlake Drive,
              Chesapeake, VA 23320.1


              Steinhart, P., T. Williams, J. Stuller, et al. 1990. The Last Wetlands. Audubon Magazine. July
              1990. 132 pp. [Special issue available at most libraries.)


              Teal, John M. and Mildred. 1969. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh. Ballatine Books. NY, NY.
              274 pp. [Available in paperback in many bookstores.]

              Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. 1,984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Trends..U.S. Fish
              and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. Washington, D.C. 46 pp. [Available from
              U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.1

              Tiner, Ralph W., Jr. 1987. Mid-Atlantic Wetlands: A Disappearing Natural Resource. U.S. Fish
              and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Program. Newton Comer, Massachusetts.
              28 pp. [Available from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton
              Corner, Massachusetts 02158.1


              Udall, Stuart L. 1988. The Quiet Crisis IL Henry Holt and Company. NY, NY    .298 pp. (Avail-
              able in many bookstores.]


              U.S. E.P.A. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1982. Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to an Ecosystem. 33
              pp. [Available from Chesapeake Bay Program, 401 Severn Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21403.1

              U.S. EYA 1988. America's wetlands: our vital link between land and water. U.S. E.P.A., Office
              of Wetlands Protection. Washington, D.C. 9 pp. [Available from Office of Wetlands Protection,
              Washington, D.C. 20460.1

              Virginia Sea Grant College Program. 1989. Virginia Marine Resource Bulletin. Vol. 21:(1). 21
              pp. [Tidal freshwater wetlands issue available from VIMS Sea Grant Office-1


              White, Christopher P. 1989. Chesapeake Bay: Nature of the Estuary, A Field Guide. Tidewater
              Publishers, Centreville, Maryland. 212 pp. [Available at many bookstores.]












              2






                                        Virginia Wetlands
                                      Historical Summary


           Background

                1966     Legislature established a special Marine Resources Study Commission.


                1967     Study Commission recommended a special study on marsh and wetlands.


                1968     Legislature directed VIMS to conduct the wetlands study.


                1969     VIMS report (Coastal Wetlands of Virginia, Interim Report, Wass and Wright, Dec. 1969).


                1970-72  Public hearings, drafting of Wetlands Act and research (Marcellus, Boon, Lynch) to
                         determine wetlands definitions and upper limits of wetlands.


                1972     Published Tidal Datum Planes and Tidal Boundaries and Their Use as Legal Boundaries,
                         Boon and Lynch, 1972.


                1972     Wetlands Act enacted, to become effective 1 July 1972. Publication of Coastal Wetlands of
                         Virginia, Interim Report No. 2, Marcellus, July 1972. First local wetlands boards established
                         and VIMS commences training workshops for boards. VIMS also commences wetlands
                         inventory.


                1973     Published management manual for wetlands boards (Local Management of Wetlands-
                         Environmental Considerations, Marcellus, Dawes, Silberhorn, June, 1973). First county
                         inventory published (Lancaster County Tidal Marsh Inventory, Silberhorn, December, 1973).


                1974     Published wetlands guidelines (Coastal Wetlands of Virginia, Interim Report No. 3,
                         Guidelines for Activities Affecting Virginia Wetlands, Silberhorn, Dawes, Barnard, June
                         1974). Published two county inventories (Mathews, York; both Silberhorn). Wetlands
                         Guidelines promulgated by VMRC.


                1974     Wetlands of Back Bay and the North Landing River and its Tributaries added by
                         amendment.


                1982     Nonvegetated wetlands added by amendment. Boards expanded from 5 to 7 members
                         (optional). Grandfather Sunset Clause.
  Is            1983     Wetlands Guidelines revised to include nonvegetated areas.

                                                                                                (over)





         Virginia Wetlands Historical Summary





             1987      Wetlands Act amended to allow reporting, site inspections, notice to comply and stop work
                       orders.


             1989      Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy adopted.


             1990      Wetlands Act amended to allow court ordered civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 for each
                       day of violation. In lieu of any civil penalty, civil charges of up to $10,000 for each violation
                       may be ordered by the Marine Resources Commission or Wetlands Board. Restoration
                       hearings were also authorized.


             1991      Tidal Marsh Inventory for City of Chesapeake completed and published (last of original
                       series). Wetlands inventories to be maintained and updated using computer-based
                       Geographical Information System (GIS).


             1991      VIMS Wetlands Program produces "Virginia Wetlands Management Handbook" and
                       Wetlands Educational Curriculum.











































        2







0

                Informal Suggestions for Conducting
                          A Public Hearing





                              Contents





                1. Arrangements prior to meeting
 0
                2. General meeting format


                3. Helpful hints










 0










        Just Prior to Meeting Staff Should:


            1. Telephone reminder to Board Members


            2. Confirm availability of meeting chamber


            3.   Check lights and speakers


            4.   Set out name plates, pads, and pencils


            5.   Bring appropriate area maps


            6.   Bring state and local laws


            7.   Bring photographs of site


            8.   Post agendas for public










         Holding Public Hearing


             1. Meeting called to order


             2. Attendance recorded, quorum confirmed


             3.  Chair explains purpose of meeting, reads
                 opening statement*


             4.  Chair states where agendas are posted


             5.  Chair calls for comments, questions,
                 corrections on minutes


             6.  Chair inquires about old business




         *Many boards choose to read the policy statement at
         the beginning of the Wetlands Act.










        Hearing Items




            1. Chair may shift hearing order, administer
                 oaths, limit presentations and discussions


            2.   Chair or staff state case number and
                 presents brief description of proposed proje(,.,.t


            3.   Chair or staff read VIMS report into record


            4.   Applicant or representative speaks


            5.   Others speak


            6.   Chair closes hearing to public








        Board Discussion




        1. Chair asks for comments from Board members


        2. Record should display a consideration of:


                A. Social concerns


                B. Economic concerns


                C. Physical concerns


                D. Environmental concerns


        3. Chair asks for staff evaluation/recommendation


        4. Chair asks if any additional comments from VIMS


        5. Chair entertains motion




        *A benefits vs. detriments format is recommended







        Motions may include:

            1. Approval as submitted


            2.  Approval in modified form

            3.  Approval with bonding or letter of credit
                required


            4.  Denial


            5.  Denial without prejudice

            6.  Direct applicant to provide more information

            7.  Defer decision for up to 30 days




        After Board Decision


            1. Chair informs applicant and audience of
                appealprocess


            2. Time limit on permit










        Helpful Hints


            1. Require speaker from public to approach
                Board, state name/address, speak, return to
                audience


            2.  Limit speakers to issues germane to
                Wetlands Board


            3.  Allow everyone an opportunity to speak


            4.  Direct all public comment or questions to
                Board


            5.  Discourage interaction between audience and
                speaker


            6.  State decision rationale in benefit vs.
                detriment format











                                                                                                                    . t:_










































                                                                                                                                                                    --) fir
                                                                                                                                                                    ,   J.-
                                                                                                                                                             a         I ,










                                                                                          A
                                                                                          li              lill 1111
                                                                                     3 6668 00002 6387