Critical shore erosion reaches recommendations of the Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration, Department of Natural Resources of Areas : for designation as areas of critical state concern

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

.Critical Shore Erosion Reaches

Reco-Minendati ons

of the

Coastal Resources Division

Tidewater Administration

Department of Natural Resources

of Areas for pesignation as:

.Areas of Critical State Concern

April , 1982

The"production of this report was funded as part of a Coastal

Kone Management Program Implementation Grant from the Office
TC
224 )f Coastal Zone Management, NOAA.
M3
C75
1982

Tabl e of Contents

Part I. Introduction Page 1

Part II. Criteria for Critical Areas Identification Page 3

Part III. Management Techniques for Critical Areas Page 6

Appendix A: Description of Historic Shore Erosion Rate-Maps and Shore
Erosion Structure Maps Including Discussion of the Limitations
of the bata.

Appendix B: Bibliography of Maryland Publications on Shore Erosion.

Attachment A: Tabular and flap Information on Location and Characteristics
of Recommended Critical Shore Erosion Reaches.

Attachment 6: Wetlands Division Policy Guidelines Concerning Permit Applications
Involving Construction of Shore Erosion Control Measures,

Part I. Introduction

The State of Maryland contains 3,190 miles of tidal shoreline; most of
which lies along the Chesapeake Bay and its inflowing rivers. The historic
changes in shoreline have been documented for 1,593 miles;1 270 miles

along the main Chesapeake Bay, 1,191 miles along its tributaries and 132 in

the Atlantic Ocean/Bay system. All of this shoreline is dynamic and, thus,

whenever development takes place immediately adjacent to the shoreline, a
potentially hazardous situation arises.

The State of Maryland has taken an interest in the problem of shore-

line erosion to the private property owner since 1910. Since 1968, the

State has operated a program of technical and financial assistance to

private shorefront property owners. Along the Atlantic Coast, the State

has been active in building or funding shore protection structures since

1921. Concerns of the State which have resulted in its taking a financial

interest in this problem can be summarized as follows:

1. Loss of valuable waterfront acreage with subseuent reduction

in tax base;

2. Loss of land, particularly sandy beaches, available for public

waterfront recreation;

3. Threat to man-made structures such as houses and toads,

4. Deposition of silt, sediment and debris into tidal waters, and

5. The potential for exacerbation of erosion problems at one

location by erosion control stuructures on adjacent properties.

1The upper reaches of tributaries were not surveyed historically and

therefore erosion rates in those areas are not documented.

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29 5-2413

In detemining--which areas should be considered Areas of Chtical
State Concern, one could argue that th e entire tidal shoreline of the State

qualifies. The Coastal Resources Division has for practical reasons,

however, limited its recommendations to areas where erosion problems-'are

more likely to become acute, based primarily on rate of shoreline retreat.

In thus highlighting certain areas of the shoreline, the State and its

local jurisdictions should not lose sight of the fact that shore erosion

is a continual concern throughout the Tidewater region. Management goals

for the State should include at least the following:

1) Public Education: Shorefront property owners should be educated

about:

a.) the problems of shore erosion

b.) the costs of shoreline protection measures

C.) how to obtain adequate design and construction of Protection

measures

d.) the need for maintenance of shoreline protection measures.

2) Standards for Structural Protection: the State should develop

advisory standards for design of protective structures adequate to with-

stand and protect against typical stonns in this region.

3) Discouragement of Unwise Development

Through such mechanisms as State Clearinghouse Review, intervention

and other means examined by the State Developt--ient Council, any significant

construction within fifty feet of a tidal shoreline should he "red-flag-

qed." In no case should such construction be sanctioned unless there is,

assurance that such development will be nrotected from shore erosion

Processes by structural or non-structural measures.

4) Local Action The State should encoura ge local governments to use
their auth *ority to-adopt some or all of the following measures to mitigate

erosion hazards:

a) zoning controls which include the use of shoreline set backs and other

mitigation techniques

b) design and building standards

c) creation of shore erosion control districts

d) subdivision contro1s

e) local bonding authority to obtain funding to install shore erosion measures.
f) inspection programs of the construction and maintenance of shore

erosion measures.

Part II. Criteria for Critical Areas Identification

The recommended critical shoreline areas have been identified in terms of

shoreline "reaches." A reach is defined as a stretch of shoreline which has a

fairly uniform shoreline profile*, a similar exposure to waves and is exposed to

similar erosional forces. The actual rate of retreat may vary within a reach

for reasons not yet clearly understood. Reaches along the Chesapeake Bay shoreline

were characterized according to the predominate rate of erosion within the reach

using information contained in a report entitled Assessment of Shore Ero sion in

Northern Chesapeake Bay and the Performance of Erosion Control Structures prepared

for the Department of Natural Resources by Coastal and Offshore Engineering

Research and Development Inc. as part of another Coastal Resources Division

study effort. Additional reaches worthy of critical area designation located

in the mouths of tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay were identified by Department
of Natural Resources staff. 2 The two criteria used to identify areas

2This approach is similar to that used by the Corps of Engineers in its
Chesapeake Bay Study-Existing Conditions Report; the primary difference is
the application of the criterion of "greater than four feet" per year (by
CRD) rather than "greater than three feet per year" (by the Corps) in
undeveloped areas. CRD used the "greater than four feet per year" criterion
because the historic erosion rate maps categorize erosion in these intervals,
i.e. (012 ft, 24 ft, 4-8 ft and >8 ft).

(reaches) of critical state concern were:

(1) reaches in which water and or wastewater services are

present or planned within a portion of the reach and where

the historic erosion rate is two (2) feet or greater per

year.

(2) reaches in which the historic erosion rate is four (4)

feet or greater per year regardless of adjacent land use.

Approximately two hundred miles of shoreline meet these criteria.

While this is a rather substantial area to include in a critical atea

nomination, we believe it is justified as an initial recomnendation. Even

at the lower end the scale of erosion included i.e. two feet per year a

1/2 acre shorefront lot could be cut in half in fifty years.

Table 1 lists the reaches on a county by county basis that are

recommended for critical area designation. Attachment A of this report

cont ains (1) maps showing the location of reaches recomimended for critical

area designation and (2) tabular information on the erosion rate occurring

within the reach, the presence of shore erosion structures within the

teaches, and the type of water and wastewater service existing or planned

for the reaches on a county by county basis. Appendix A contains a

description, including their limitations, of the historic shore erosion

rate maps and the shore erosion structure maps used in the identification

and characterization of the reaches. Appendix B contains a bibliogyaphy of
pertinent Maryland publications on shore erosion.

It should be recognized that there are valid reasons why some of the

recommended areas might be removed from the "critical" category pryior to

the designations being made. Areas might be removed from the "critical"

category during their review by the Department of State Planning (DSP), the

counties and other State agencies, based on the following factors:

1) Consideration of,Futur-e Development

CRD made no?judgement concerning the likelihood that development shown
in local wat6r- and sewer- plans would occur. CRD is aware that in the areas

scheduled for future development, especially in the 5-10 year period and

beyond, a high level of uncertainty exists. We believe this is a matter-

for- those familiar- with the local situation to evaluate. Likewise., i.t may

be appropriate to exclude some areas characterized by. local undeveloped

tracts, for which no subdivision or development is anticipated in the

foreseeable future, despite the presence of severe erosion rates. If such

undeveloped areas consist of prime agricultural lands, they still should be

given serious consideration for- designation.

2) Areas Already Given Protection

Some developed areas which historically have had a high rate of

erosion may have been adequately stabilized in-recent years. If an entire

reach or community shoreline has been stabilized, and a means for adequate

maintenance exists, an area -may no longer be considered critical.

3) The Reach as a Practical Measure of Shoreline Erosion

It should be recognized that recommended designations were based on

the concept of a "reach" of shoreline within which the erosional forces are

simil ar. Nonetheless the actual rate of shoreline retreat will vary within

this reach. From, a local comprehensive land-USe r)lanninq perspective, the

reaches may be arbitrarily applied. There also may be factors which

justify alterinq the (ieographic extent of the designated reach.

4) Existinq or Planned Public Services on Only a Sniall Portion of the Reach

Where a portion of the area within a reach charact*erized by an erosion
rate of two feet or. greater had either existing or planned water and/or

wastewater services, the entire reach was recommended for critical area

designation. In addition, some reaches may not be worthy of designation

because only a small pottion of then. have existing or planned water and/or

wastewater services or it may be the case that a more detailed analysis

should be performed to determine if only a portion of the reach should be

designated.

Additional areas not recommended in this report may be worthy of

consideration for designation by DSP, other State agencies, or local

governments. These could be:

1. Areas containing extensive shoreline development on individual

water and septic systems and experiencing shore erosion rates of 24 ft/yr

because of the potential adverse impacts from shore erosion.

2. Areas adjacent to State parks, forests and wildlife management

areas or similar lands owned by local governments on which development is

planned because of possible increased shore erosion on the adjacent
publicly owned lands due to the development itself or associated shore

erosion structures such as groins and jetties.

3. Shoreline publicly owned lands which experience shore erosion Yates

of 24 ft/yr but donot,meet the criteria established above since they do not

have existing or planned water and/or wastewater services because of the

significant adverse impacts on public property

Part III. Management of Critical Shore Erosion Areas

In the designation process, two facts should be emphasized:

1. Designation as a critical area does not indicate that development

should be discouraged. A recent study of success and failure of shoreline

structures conducted for CRD indicates that erosion can be controlled along

most Chesapeake Bay shorelines, even where the histoyic rate of retreat is

greater than 10 feet/year. Designation should rather emphasize: (1). the

need to provide for adequate shoreline setbacks and/or shore erosion

control measures; (2) the need to provide for the initial cost and the

maintenance of controls; and (3) the potential to prevent future pyoblems
through sound planning.

2. Designation does not imply that areas necessarily qualify for

receipt of State or federal shore erosion control funds. The Shore Erosion
Loan Program can only protect about l-1/2 miles of shoreline per year given

current funding.

Management techniues should focus on two objectives:

1. To prevent development immediately adjacent to highly eroding

shorelines, and/or

2. to provide for adequately designed, constructed and maintained

shore erosion contyol measures.

CRD is currently assisting in a cooperative study of local management

approaches to shore erosion in Queen Anne's and Talbot Counties. This

studyis expected to provide a more detailed analysis of the options

available for erosion management. What follows is a preliminary listing of

potential management techniques.

A. State Management Techniques

1. Wetlands License/Permit Program

Most shore e6osion control measures will require a wetlands perm.it or

license from the Wetlands Division, Water Resources Administration. Whil e.

the adequacy of structures is not a criterion for obtaining a permit or
licens@, this program does give the State the opportunity to funnel technical

assistance to individuals seeking to build structures'. The permit program

can be used to prevent aggravation of erosion problems on areas adjacent to

proposed projects. Attachment B contains the guidelines used by the Wetlands

Divis ion in making decisions. on permit applications involving shore erosion

structures.

2. Shore Erosion Control Program

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources administers a program to

assist property owners through its Shore Erosion Control Division. Under

Natural Resources A rticle 8-1001, indivi dual landowners, municipalities,

and counties may apply for 25 year interest-free loans for projects designed

to control shore erosion.

Money for projects is awarded on the basis of available funds and priority

ratings based on.,erosion rate, amount of silt coming from the property, public

benefit, the type of water eroding the property, and the date of application.

Such State loans for erosion control projects cover 100% of the first

$50,000, 50% of the next $20,000, 25% of the succeedinq $20,000, and 10% of

any remaining costs. Loans are repaid in 25 equal annual installments

through a special charge levied hy the 9oard of Public @,!orks. Th-is is

recorded as a lien against the protected property. The Department of

Natural Resources siipervises the design and constrUCtiOn Of the structures

it funds, but expects the property owner to maintain the structure.

Individual property owners with shore erosion problems mav contact the

Shore Erosion Control Division by phone or in writing to request a field

inspection. An inspector from. the Shore Erosion Control Division will

examine the property and inform the owner whether he is eligible for finan-

cial or technical assistance. If the erosion is serious, the inspector

will give the owner a loan application and explain the entire'process.

Eighteen months is usually required between the initial request for finan-

cial assistance and the award of a construction contract. If the prooer-

tyIs erosion is not deemed severe by the field insoector, he will assist
property owners in determining the best'method of controlling erosion.

Property owners in a single community who have a serious oroblem, with

erosion may petition their local government to create a Shore Erosion

Control District. A feasibility study of the need for a District will be

prepared by the Department of Natural Resources after the county has

petitioned. the Shore Erosion Control Division. If and when a District is

established, the county may apply for financial assistance on behalf of the

District and levy a special assessment aqainst the affected property owners

of any construction loans granted.

3. Coastal Zone flawement Proqram

Through technical studies and informational documents, the CZMP helps

the State improve its shore erosioLn proqram. Local coastal planners funded

throuqh CZMP can work on incorporating erosion mitigation measures into

local plans and requlationsi, In addition, studies such as the above'cited

Queen Anne's/Talbot Count@y effort are fu6ded.

4. Structural Standards

The State can develop advisory guidelines or standards for construc-

tion of protective measures in Chesapeake 9ay. Such quidelines could be

m,andatory when public funds are used.

5. Beach Erosion Control Districts

State Law Prohibits construction east of building limit line in Ocean

City. The program is enforced by the City Zoning Administrator.

6. Interim and Long Tern, Beach Erosion Contro 1 Plans

Tidewater Administration has developed an Interim Beach Erosion

Control plan for the Ocean City Beach, involving the construction of groins

at set intervals alonq the Beach. Pendina funding for this plan, Ocean

City receives State funds for groin construction. The City is required to

place new groins af locations consistent with the Interim Plan and use

construction practices approved by the State such as the use of filter

cloth.

7. Corps of Engineers Storm Protection and Shore Erosion Plan for

Ocean City

A long term plan for Ocean City Bea.ch restoration and management has

been developed by the Corps of Engineers. Means of financing the non-

federal share for this plan should be explored by the State in cooperation

with Ocean City.

B. Local Management Techniques

1. Zoning Regulations: Special shoreline districts may be created

involving setback or other shoreline standards. Alternately, setbacks can

be included in all zoning district requirements, when the districts abut

the.shoreline.

2. Subdivision Reqtilations: Subdivision regulations may require

shoreline setbacks. Alternately, clustering can he encouraged to avoid

development along hin,hlv eroding _r)ortions of a reach or to lessen the

burden of costs associated with shore protection. Developers might be

given an option of nroviding a setback for shorefront lots or providing

shore erosion control as part of the community infrastructure. Design

standards covering shore protection may also be integrated into subdivision

standards Simi lar to road construc'tion or other iMDrovei-qent acceptance

standards.

3. Buillina Codes could regulate construction of Drotective

structures.

4. Protective Convenants/Home Owner Associations can he used to

require maintenance of shoreline buffer areas.

5. Shore Erosion Control Districts may be formed to provide property

tax revenue to repay local bonds issued for the purpose of constructing

shore erosion control measures and to ensure that they are properly

maintained.

6. Inspection programs Could be devel oped to insure proper maintenance

of existing structures..

7. Soil Conservation Districts@should be consulted for assistance with

bank stabilization. Bank grading and vegetative planting would be particu-

larly appropriate in comhination with setbacks or in-agricultural areas.

C. Federal Management Techniques

1. U.S. Army Corns of Engineers

A. Section 110/Section 404 permits. Through its authority under

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 18q9 and Section 404 of the

Federal Water Quality Act of 1976, the U.S. Army Cor,ps of Engineers

renuires shorefront oroperty owners to obtain a nermit before undertaking

an
y shore erosion control measures. Such permits require waterfront

property owners to follow certain requirements in constructing shore

erosion protective devices. In the case of small rio-raD Drojects and

bulkhead and rip-rap maintenance nrojects which meet certain minimum

cr-iter-ia an applicant does not have to under-go the full feder-al per-mit
pr-ocess but only,pr-ovide the Coy-ps with infor-mation on his py-oposed pr-oject
30 days pr-ior- to.under-taking it. The-applicant still must obtain any

r-equir-ed State or- local per-mits.

B. Section 103 of the-Rivers and Harbors Act (Small Beach Erosion and

Shore Protection Project Authority) authorizes the United States Army'Corps

of Engineers to conduct investigations and studies to identify effe ctive

means of preventing erosion of the shores of coastal and lake waters by

waves and currents. Requests may he made by a prospective sponsoring

agency who is'empowered under State law to provide all local cooperation to

the District Engineer of the Army Corps. The Federal cost of the studies,

and construction project together may not exceed 1 million dollars. The
Federal government 'will bear 30-80% of the construction cost of an eligible

project as a general rule.

C. Section 5S of Public Law 93-251 authorizes the Corps to provide

technical and engineering assistance to non-Federal public interests in

developing structural and non-structural metbods of nreventing damages

attributable to shoreline erosion. It should be emphasized that construc-

tion funds are not provided under this proaram.

D. The Emergency Stream Bank and Shoreline Protection of Public Works

and Non-profit Public Services (Section 14, Flood Control Act of 1946).

This program wouldcover shore erosion that endangers: 1) highways and

highway bridge approaches; 2) important and essential r,)ublic facilities

which serve the general public and are owned by the federal, State, or

local governments; 3) non-oublic facilities that r)rovide non-Drofit public

services such as.churches, hospitals, and schools.

E. Mitigation of Shore Damaqe Attributable to Federal Navigation

Projects (Sectiort.111, River and Harbor Act of 1968). This legislation

authorizes the Secretary of the Army to investigate, study, and construct

projects for the prevention or mitigation of shoreline damages caused by

existing navigation works built bY the Federal government. This law does

not cover construction of works to prevent or mitigate shore damages due to

riv'er bank erosion or vessel generated wave wash damages. It would apply,

for example, to shore erosion caused by blockage of the littoral drift

process by a harbor breakwater constructed by the Federal government.

F'. Public Works Projects. Another extremely lengthy Federal process

which could potentially aid a proup of shoreline o,,@iners would be a major

civil works project. In this case the people would oetition their

congressional representative either directly, or through their local

government representatives, to ask Congress to authorize the U.S. Army

Corns of Engineers to StLIdkf ttiei r problem. If Congress authorizes and

funds the study, pul)lic hearings are heldand the feasibility study is
developed along wi'th an' Environmental Imnact Sta-te'lent. The feasibility

study is then submitted to Congress for possi@le legislative action. If

the project receives both Congressional authorization and funding,the

project will be constructed if certain legal constraints are met by the

State and local qovernments. This method of oroblem solving is extremely

lengthy but may be the only way to raise the necessary funds when a large

shore erosion nroject is considered necessar.y.

2. U.S. Denartment of Agriculture

The Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of

Ar
griculture is able to provide technical assistance to individuals,

especially farmers, who need to protect their s*horeline. They are

narticularly qualified to helD in problems where Qround water seepage is
causing damage tcrexisting exposed bluff or an existing bulkhead.

Additionally, the local Soil.Conservation District may make appli-

cation for Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Proqram money which

may be used to protect public shoreline. Funding through the RC&D program

takes roughly a year to obtain. These funds are administered on a

competitive basis. Local Soil Conservation District Office staff can

usually provide more detailed information concerning requirements of the

RC&D fund.

3. Farmers Home Administration

The Famers Home Administration makes Soil and Water Conservation

Loans available to owners of land who are activelv involved in fa rming

their property. These loans may be used to protect a shoreline with an

erosion problem. Currently, there is a $200,000 limit on the loan and the

interest rate is 13-1/4%. The term of these FIHA loans is 40 years, and a

mortgage is taken on-the property to secure the loan.

4. Federal Emergency Management Agency'

Section 1362--of Public Law 90-41-9 as amended, Drovides the Director of

the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the authoritv to negotiate for

the i)urchase and subsequent transfer to State or local government of flood

dailiaqed,*improved real prooerty under certain conditions. 1-1hile this T)ro-

gram does not help a community in need of shore erosion control structures,

it would heli) to relocate all or nart of such a coni-munity. There is a

complex set of rules and regulations which must be met by a local govern-

ment in order to qualify for assistance. These criteria can be found in

the Federal Register, Volume 45, number 146, I-Ionday, July 29, 1980.

Table I Reaches Recommended for Critical Area Designation

Water/Wastewater
Reach Erosion Setvices Present
County Number Geogyap hic Boundaries Rate or Planned

St. Mary's 8 St. George Island M NO
10 Priests Point-Kitts Point L YES
11 Kitts Point-Gray Point M NO
14 Point Lookout-St. Jeyome Creek H YES
16 Point No Point-Pine Hill Run M YES
18 Cedar Point-Hog Point M YES
18 Hog Point-Pearson Creek M YES

Calvert 20 Little Cove Point-Cove Point L YES
21 Cove Point-Long Beach L YES
23 Parker Cyeek-Plum Point L YES
25 Chesapeake Beach-Holland Point M YES

Anne Arundel 26 Holland Point P YES
28 Bockhold Cyeek-Broadwater Creek M YES
29 Broadwater Creek-Curtis Point M YES
30 Dutchman Point-Turkey Point L YES
31 Thomas Point H NO
32 Thomas Point-Tolly Point L YES
34 Hackett Point-Sandy Point L YES
36 Mountain Pt.-Gibson Island Beach L YES
38 Bodkin Point-Rock Point L YES

Baltimore 40 Bayshore Park-Bay Island Beach L YES
41A Island and View Beach-Browns Crk. M YES
43A Briet Point M NO
43B Lower Island Point H NO
43C Carroll Point M NO
43D Bengies Point M NO

Harford 47 Taylor Island Pt.-Strong Point M N0

Cecil 53A Seneca Point Charlestown Basin L YES
53B Charlestown Basin N.-Amtrack Bank L YES

Kent 70 Swan Point-Windmill Point L YES
73A Hail Point M NO
73B Gum Point-Baybush Point M NO

Table I (Continued)

Water/Wastewater
Reach Erosion Services Present
County Number Geographic Boundaries Rate or Planned

Queen Anne's 74 Chesterhaven-Love Point L YES
75 Love Point-Matapeake (Kent Is.) M YES
77 Craney Crk.-Kent Pt. (Kent Is.) M YES
79 Long Point-Philpots Island L YES
80 Philpots Island-Cox Creek YES
82 Brain Point-Bennett Point L YES
81A Turkey Point-Johnson Island L YES
81B Little Creek-Alley Neck L YES
81C Alleyneck-Normans Point M YES
81D Parson Island M NO
74A Chesterhaven Beach-Piney Creek M YES
74B Piney Creek-Kent Narrows M YES
74C Long Point-Jackson Creek L YES

Talbot 83 Tilghiman Point-Wades Point L YES
83A Porter Creek-Hambleton Point L YES
85 Lowes Point-Knapps Narrows M NO
86 Knapps Narrows-Blackwal nut M YES
87 Poplar Island (Bayside) H NO
90 Change Point Nelson Point M NO
93 Lucy Point-Benoni Point M NO

Dorchester 97 Todds Point H NO
99 Mills Point-Hills Point H N0
100 Hills Point-Ragged Point M NO
101 James Island H NO
102 Hooper Point-Oyster Cove H NO
103 Oyster Cove-Punch Island Creek H NO
104 Punch Isl. Crk.Barren Isl. Gap H NO
105 Barren Island H NO
106 Hooper Island M YES
107A Lakes Cove-Cedar Point M NO
112A New Foundland Point M NO

Wicomico 113 Roaring Point-Nanticoke Point M NO
113A Bay Point-Holland Point M NO

Somerset 114 Long Point-Haines Point L YES
115 Haines Point-Twiggs Point L YES
116 Twiggs Point-Webster Point L YES
117 Webster Point-Claw Point M NO
122 Janes Island M NO
123 Cedar Island M NO
128 Big Thorofare-Hog Neck H NO

Table I (Continued)

Water/Wastewater
Reach Erosion Set-vices Present
County Number Geographic Boundaries Rate or Planned

Worcester 125A Clam Harbor Tumps M NO
125B Mills Island South End M NO
125C Striking Marsh (West) M. NO
125D Big Bay Point 14 NO
125E Snow Hill Landing (South) M NO
125F Robins Marsh III NO
125G Ricks Point-Cotter Cove M NO
125H Assateague Island State Park
--Ocean City Inlet H No
1251 Ocean City Inlet-Ocean Bay City fil NO
125J Ocean Bay City-Fenwick Island I
Lighthouse L NO

NOTE: A reach may consist of a single point of reference due to particular
characteristics of geographical location.

APPENDIX A

Description of Historical Shore Erosion Rate Maps and Shore

Erosion Structure Maps (Includin@ Their Limit'ations)

1. Historical Shorelines and Erosion Rates Map Portfolios

In 1975, as part of the state's Coastal Zone Management Program
development efforts, the Maryland Geological Survey produced four port@
folios of historical shoreline and shore erosion rate maps, one for each
of the following groupings of Maryland's coastal counties: Upper
Western Shore, Lower Western Shore, Upper Eastern Shore, and Lower
Easter Shore. United States Geological Survey A2 minute quandrangle
maps were used as base maps. Two series of maps were produced, one
showing historical shorelines, the other historical shore erosion rates.
Information on the historical shoreline were compiled by T. H. Slaughter
from United States Coast and Geodetic Survey charts, and are presented
in tabular form in Shore Erosion in Tidewater Maryland (1949). The U.S.
Coast and Geodetic survey charts date as far back as 1841 and are of
scales 1:10,000 and 1:20,000. To c@mpile historical shorelines on the
base maps at a scale of 1:24,000 a Kargl Reflection Projector was used
which reduced the Coast and Geodetic Charts to the 1:24,000 scale.
The historical shorelines superimposed on the base map were hand traced
on a mylar overlay. Generally, two shoreiines are depicted in the map
series but if the base map had been revised a third, interinediate shore-
line was presented.

Using the historical shoreline maps, erosion rates in feet per
year were calculated by dividing the linear recession by the number of
years. Erosion rate categories were selected to be: 0<2 ft/yr (slight),
2-4 ft/yr (low), 4-8 ft/yr (Tgoderate) and >8 ft/yr (high) for time periods
greater- than 75 years and 0<4 ft/yr (low), 4-8 ft/yr (moderate) and >8
ft/yr (high) for time perioas less than 75 years. The shoreline areas
falling into each category were then mapped the USGS maps. Areas in
which accretion had occurred were also noted. Selection of the categories
and time periods was based on accuracy of drafting technique and field
observations to depict the severity of erosion for any particular area.
It should also be noted that where artificial fill or erosion control
structures exist in local areas, the erosion rate categories noted on
the maps may not be valid. The user is cautioned to determine if
artificial fill or erosion control structures are present in the area of
interest before using the map. Areas left blank are a result of a lack of
or invalid historical data.and do not necessarily represent a zero er6sion rate.

II. Shore Erosion Control Structures in Maryland: Their

Location and Extention Map Portfolios

In 1976, as another Coastal Zone Management Program development effort,
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources undertook an effort to map
and compile statistical information on shore erosion control structures on
tidal shoreline coastal zone. It was not intended for use in determining
precise positions, lengths, value, or effectiveness of individual control
structures.

The base ma7ps utilized in this inventory were the 7.5 minute
topographic qkvadrangleg of the U.S. Geological Survey. The primary
dat a source used was color aerial photography (1971, 1:12,000) made
available ihrough the Wetlands Permit Section of the Water Resources
Administration. Deficiencies in coverage and interpretation of the
photography were rectified by field checking of selected areas by boat
and plane during 1975 and 1976. A secondary data source, the case
files of the Wetlands Permit Section, was used to map structures which
have received a State Wetlands License from 1971 through July 1976.
Structures in this class have been divided into new and replacement cate-
gories. In Anne Arundel'County, the above data sources were supplemented
by an intensive field survey of the entire shoreline conducted by the
Maryland Geological Survey in the summer of 1974.

Potential sources of error exist in the compilation and mapping
process. The most significant potential error is the omission of
existing structures due to misinterpretation of the photography.
Another error of omission is implicit in the use of the case files, since
a State Wetlands License is required only for structures at or below
mean high water (mhw). Therefore, the inventory may be considered
conservative with respect to'the total length and number of structures
represented.

Structures included in the inventory are defined as follows:

Bulkheads - All prot-ection structures with a,vertical face placed
parallel to the shoreline at or near mhw. (Other
structures, such as revetments and gabions, may have
been placed in this category in cases in which they
could not be differentiated from bulkheads in inter-
pretation of the source data.)

Ripra sloping structure of loose stone construction placed
parallel to the shoreline at or near mhw.
Concrete Revetment - smooth sloping structure of interlocking
block or concrete construction placed
parallel to the shoreline at or near mhw.
Groin System - one or more structures placed perpendicular to the
shore along a reach of shoreline to promote beach
accretion.

Jetty - a'structure placed perpendicular to shore along the edge
of a tidal or river inlet to prevent shoaling of the channel
by material transported by littoral currents.

Breakwater a structure placed offshore, sometimes connected to
the shore at one end, designed to protect the shore-
line or harbor areas from wave action.

Appendix B
Bibliography of Maryland Publications on Shore Erosion.

The following publications on shore erosion ha've been developed as part of
the development and implementation of Maryland's Coastal Zone Management Program
and provided an information base for development of this report.

1. Comprehensive Shore Erosion Planning in Queen Anne's and Talbot Counties,
1982 expected publication date).

2. Effects of Erosion Co,ntrol Structures along a Portion of the Northern
Z-hesapeake Bay, 1980.

3. Factors Influencing the Success and Failure of Shore Erosion Structures
-5-the Northern Chesapeake Bay, 1982.

4. Historical Shoreline and Erosion Rates Map Portfolios, 1975.

5. An 111 ustrated. Study of Chesapeake Bay Beaches in Four Maryland State
Parks, 1982 (expected publication date).

6. The Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne Arundel County, 1980.

7. Shore Erosion Control: A guidejor Waterfront Property Owners in the
-Ch-esapbake Bay_Area, 1976.

8. Shoreline Structures in Maryland: Their Location and Extent Map Portfolios,
T-976.

Attachment B

Wetlands Division Policy Guidelines Concerning Permit Applications Involving
Construction of Shore Erolsion Control Measures.
The owner of land bounding on navigable or tidal waters is entitled to
protect his shore against erosion as described in Title 9 of the Natural
Resources Article. To ensure this right, the Water Resources Administration
uses the following criteria to review proposed projects in carrying out the state
policy to preserve the wetlands while allowing the exercise of the right of
a riparian owner to protect his shore against erosion.

(6) The construction of bulkheads or other shore protection measures
shall include only such filling as necessary for effective use
of such measures and shall generally be located at the mean high
water line or no further channelward than needed for proper tie-back
emplacement, or in cases of a steep bank or cliff, no further
channelward than needed to obtain a stable slope.

(7) Where shore protection is needed and a marsh exists in front of an
applicant's land, the shore protection structure shall be placed
behind the marsh or low profile protection (preferably riprap) placed
channelward of the riarsh'so that normal tidal flow into the marsh
will be naintained.

(8) Bulkheads shall be constructed with adequate returns to fastland or
connected to adjacent shore erosion control structures, as nay be
applicable.

(9) Because of their possible detrimental effect, shoreline protective
structures may not be approved or recommended for approval in the
following cases, except where there is no alternative means to
achieve a necessary public benefit whose need significantly outweighs
the harm done by the proposed work:

a. Marshland will be filled or otherwise destroyed.
b. Surface drainage channels will be filled or occluded.
c. Navigation will be adversely affected.
d. Unique or rare and endangered flora or fauna will be affected.
e. Important historical or archeololical sites will be adversely affected.
f. Private oyster leases or natural oyster bars in adjacent open waters
will be affected.

b. Junk retal, tires, tree, stups and logs or other material

that does not contain, and will not create pollutents, not
placed as an interlocking structure shall not be used as part
of any shore protection measures.

C. If jetties or groins are used, they must be designed at a
minimum length and height to serve the purpose intended and
only placed in a location not harmful to navigation or to the
land of nearby land owners and the general public. The Water
Resources Administration requests a determination from the
Maryland Geological Survey on such works. Such work shall be
approved only if it does not interfere with public access,
create adverse sand transportation patterns or adversely disturb
the aquatic ecosystem.
d. The approval by t8he Water Resources Administration of any shore
protection measures does not constitute state certification of
the adeuacy of the fixed structures for the particular circum-

(10) The provision of shoreline protection is encouraged in locations
subject to severe erosion where conditions described in
(9) above do not apply. In the review of such projects, in location
determined by Maryland Geological Survey (where applicable) to have
documanted erosion, the Water Resources Administrantior, recommends such

protective works to be constructed in such way to have the minimum
adverse effect upon the ecological, economic, hydrological,
aesthetic, historical, and recreational values in the area.

(11) Permits or licenses may not be granted for shore protective structures or
filling unless adeuate provision is made for drainage from inland
areas. The construction of bulkheads and other protective structures
across wetland areas shall provide only such filling as is necessary

for the effective operation of the shore protection work and shall not
be used for the creation of fast land from watlands except in those
cases where the proposed activity is water dependent and the filling
Complies with other pertinent policy in these guidelines.

(12) Dredging for fill to be used for the efficient oppration of shore erosion

control work is allowed only where access te deposit land source
material is not feasible or costs are excessive and it is determined
not to have an extended or permanent adverse environmental impact.
Dredging seaward of an existing bulkhead will alter the graduated
bottom depth that helps dissipate wave energy. If dredging is used
for fill, adeuate conpensation nay be required by the state for
this material. An example of cases where dredging to obtain

backfill material nay be permitted is where:

a. A steep bank or cliff exists and the nearshorp water depths are
shallow which makes trucking-in or baring-in fill material infeasible.

b. Large trees or buildings prevent trucking-in fill
material.

In both a and b above, however, if grading is to be done, truckin-in
fill material usually becomes feasible. The fact the, dredged
material may be less expensive than trucked-in fill not a major
factor.

(13) The shore protection measures used nust satisfy the following criteria
regarding quality and performance:

a. When site conditions permit the use of a sloping bank stabilized
with vegetation, with or without riprap, this method should be
encouraged as an economical solution while preserving the
natural conditions.

illiolilliplillimil
'1 3 6668 14103 2724