assessment of the Barrier Island Policy and the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Act Prepared for the Virginia Marine Resources Commission

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

FY'91 Task 17

Final Product
V-,( [email protected] Ywa,,&

ii 0 i i e@-. 10 @;*i
. .........
V I R G I N I A
..... ......... ..........
. ............ .
.... .........

X. . .........
...... .... .
----------
-----------
..............
v.
6 @R
. . ...........
....... ..
.. ... ..
X-3:
.... .. ..... ............... .
..... .... .

............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . X'e . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... . .... . . .....
(ALICIssessment of the Barrier Island Policy
I the Coastal'Primary Sand Dune Act

Prepared by,
Chris W. Frye

:1k -A

1:... fl
N"

T'his report was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant
NA17OZO359-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
77

Barder Island Policy Assessment

Table of Contents.

1. Introduction. 3

11. Barrier Island Features and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

111. Historical Use of Virginia's Coastal Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

IV. Recent Development Trends and Activities 6

V. Project Review and Evaluation. 7

A. Northern Cedar Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Central Cedar Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. Southern Cedar Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

VI. Discussion 9

A. Access Ramps 9
B. Septic Disposal Systems . .10
C. Water Quality .12
D. Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
K Over-sand Vehicle Use .13

VII. Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

VIII. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

IX Over-sand Vehicle Registration Form 16

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

A Introduction Accomack County, however, has not and it in
the Commission% responsibility to consider the
impacts to the primary sand dunes and beaches
The Commonwealth of Virginia legislatively in that locality.
adopted the Coastal Primary Sand Dune Protec- This report will focus on Accomack and North-
tion Act in 1980. The Act wags set forth in ampton Counties and one of Virginia's most
acknowledgment of the unique physiographic valuable natural resource's - a chain of 13 barrier
features of coastal primary sand dunes and islands located on the seaside of theVirginia
beaches, which function as protective barrie= portion of the southern Delmarva peninsula
from the effects of flooding and erosion caused (Figure 1). The two primary geornorphological
by coastal storms. Sand dunes and beaches are features of Accomack and Northampton Coun-
also recognized for their importance to the over- ties'barrier islands, sand dunes and overwash
all scenic and recreational attractiveness of Vir-
ginia's coastal zone. areas, are both included in the statutory defini-
tion of a coastal primary sand dune as a...
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission "mound of unconsolidated sandy soil which is
("Comm; sion!" or "VMRC'), in conformance contiguous to mean high water, whose landward
with Chapter 14 of Title 28.2 of the Code of and lateral limits are marked by a change in
grade from ten percent or greater to less than
Figure I - Delniarva Peninsula and Virginia's 13 ten percent, and upon any part of which is grow-
Barrier Islands ing"... one or more of the designated plants
listed in Chapter 14 of Title 28.2 of the Code of
Virginia.
MARYL@No.,
As a direct result of the increased develop
IRGINIA mental pressure during the 1980's on Cedar
AWATIA&SE ISLANO
WALLM SLAW Island in Accomack County, the Commission
a ASSAWOMANISLA" found it necessary and appropriate to establish
WAKE
a policy and supplemental guidelines to assist
0
landowners and regulators alike in shaping
DELAIARV
CEDAR ISLAND
PENINSULA barrier island uses in a manner that preserves
PARRAMORE ISLAND and protecta the values of Coastal Primary Sand
Dunes as set forth by the General Assembly.
The resulting Barrier Island Policy wags created
I" OUW40
and implemented in 1986, and later revised in
1990.
VRect, GLANO
SWW SHOAL ISLAND
MYRTLE ISLAWO The purpose of this study, funded in part by
SMITH ISLAND the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini-
FISHERMAN ISLAND stration through a grant received under the
Virginia, is the State agency responsible for Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 an
managing the permit program for encroach- amended, was to evaluate the effectiveness of
menta on coastal primary sand dunes and the revised Barrier Island Policy in reducing the
beaches. There are eight localities which are environmental impacts associated with mares
authorized and have the option to adopt the increased activities on Virginia's barrier islands.
Coastal Primary Sand Dune Ordinance: the This report focuses on Cedar Island since the
Counties of Accomack, Lancaster, Mathews, majority of development has occurred there. In
Northampton and Northumberland and the addition, the study would further examine a
Cities of Hampton, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach. permitting system for over-sand vehicle use on
Northampton County has adopted the Model the island and present a plan that would outline
Coastal Primary Sand Dune Zoning Ordinance.

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

possible changes to the present Barrier Island of the 13 barrier islands. Byrnes et al (1989)
Policy. reported the southern half of Metomkin Island
to be retreating at a rate of 13.6 m/yr, three
times the rate of the northern half, between
Barrier Island Features and Processes 1962 and 1988. Conversely, the northern
section of Cedar Island, between 1949 and 1986,
had an average retreat rate of 6.4 m/yr, while
Accomack and Northampton Counties'barrier the southern section during the same time
islands are located east of, and run parallel to, period had an average accretion rate of 2.1 m/yr
the mainland and generally exhibit a north- (Dolan, 1986). Long4erm (1852 to 1989) migra-
northeast trend. The barrier islands and their tion rates, however, indicate the entire island in
various morphological components provide retreating on an average of 4.8 m/yr (VIMS,
protection to the Eastern Shore mainland from 1989). The large variability of temporal and
the direct action of the Atlantic's waves, spatial accretion/erosion rates creates a very
currents, and storms. Similar barrier island unpredictable scenario for island development.
systems occur in every coastal state of the As a. result of the obvious difficulties associ-
United States having a shoreline along the
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific ated with regulating development activities and
Ocean (Stauble, 1989). minimizing the resultant environmental
impacts on the extremely dynamic sand plat-
Dimensions of the Eastern Shore barrier forms, the Commission attempted to develop a
islands are quite variable. The average length set of guidelines to assist in the management of
and width of the islands are approximately those areas.
8 Ian and I kin, respectively. The islands have
been characterized as low-profile with
vertical elevations ranging between 0 'in and Historical Use Of Virginia' s Coastal
10 in (Byrnes et al, 1989). Dune development Barriers
along much of the coastal barriers could be
described as minimal.
Because the barrier islands are low4ying, There is a well-documented history of human-
related activities and habitation on the barrier
they are extremely susceptible to overwash islands off the Eastern Shore. Native Ameri-
during storm events which results in the trans- cans, primarily Nanticoke tribe members, made
portation of sediment from the barrier beach frequent trips to the islands to gather provisions
and dune system to more quiescent areas and certain items used in bartering. In 1672 a
behind the barrier islands (Figure.2). The small colony of European settlers livedon Hog
resultant "overwash fans" quickly become Island, but mysteriously disappeared by the
re-colonized by coastal vegetation, which serves turn of the century. It was in the late 1800's
to trap windblown sand and assist in the natu- that a large island village, BroadwRter, emerged
ral reconstruction of coastal dunes. Overwash, on Hog Island. There were more than 200
aeolian (or wind blown) transportation, and the persons on the island, at least a dozen homes, a
exchange of sediment and water through tidal church, hotel, stores and a sportamen6 club.
inlets all contribute to the landward migration When the civil war ended, numerous wealthy
of the islands. The migration or "rollover@'proc- visitors came to the Eastern Shore's islands to
ess actually maintains the integrity of the relax, hunt and foh. The simple existence of
barrier island and the associated coastal the island's inhabitants was short-lived,
primary sand dunes and beaches. however. Although the village survived many
There is considerable temporal and spatial coastal storms and floods, it was the continuous
variation between the migration rates for each rollover and erosional processes that ultimately

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

Figure 2 - Barrier Island Rollover

Mainland Marsh/Lagoon System Barrier Is1and 0cean

coastal primary
sand dune

tidal creek

dune crest

landward migration

overwash fan storm surge

dune crest

forced the island residents to evacuate their remaining lifesaving station in use on the East-
belongings in the 1920's and early 1930's. ern Shore.

During the early years of intercoastal ship- Cedar Island has experienced similar human-
ping from the major port of New York City to related use, but mostly by seasonal recreational
the Chesapeake Bay, the barrier islands played hunting and fishing parties. In the 1950's.
a key role in providing locations for the estab- however, approximately 95% of Cedar Island,
lishment of lifesaving stations along the Atlan- which was privately owned, was subdivided into
tic Coast. The shallow and unmarked waters 2,200 Iota. The planned development, called the
along the eastern seaboard were quite danger- Ocean City of Virginia, was to be linked to the
ous, especially during stormy weather. At least mainland with a causeway. The plan lost
eight separate lifesaving stations were estab- momentum, however, and the developer offered
lished on the backside of several of the barrier to sell the property to several conservation
islands, from Assateague to Fishermans Island, organizations and the Commonwealth of
providing the most immediate response to mari- Virginia (i.e. The Nature Conservancy, Fish &
time emergencies. Most of the original stations Wildlife Federation, and the Department of
were replaced in the early 1900's with more Game and Inland Fisheries), but without suc-
modem facilities that currently exist, but in cess. During the interim, the island continued
various states of disrepair. The U.S. Coast its migratory trends and many of the originally
Guard Station on Parramore Island is the only platted Iota were lost to the Atlantic Ocean. It

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

wasn't until the mid-1980's that the majority of offices (Figure 3). A single application was filed
Cedar Island again began to be marketed and in 1985 for construction activities on the north
purchased with individual lots ranging between end of Cedar Island. The 1985 application,
two and twelve acres in size. which was approved by the Commission, was
followed in 1986 by 14 coastal primary sand dune
In contrast to Cedar Island, the majority of applications describing proposed activities on
Virginia's barrier islands are undeveloped and Cedar Island. After a time consuming and
exist as protected wildlife sanctuaries under the careful review of each of the applications, eight
Virginia Coast Reserve or National Wildlife were approved, three were denied, and three
Refuge Programs. were modified so as to not have any impacts on
the coastal primary sand dune (no permit neces-
sary; NPN).
Recent Development Trends and The 1986 deluge of a Ipplications represents the
Activities
peak year for proposed activities on Cedar
Island. The potential construction lboom!'
Since Virginia adopted the Coastal Primary revealed the necessity for further investigation
Sand Dune Act in 1980 only about 40 applica- of the possible environmental impacts due to
tions have been filed in VMRCs offices request- the increased human-related activities on the
ing authorization to conduct activities upon the barrier islands and the formulation of certain
coastal- primary sand dunes and beaches associ- criteria and guidelines for management
ated with the Eastern Shore barrier islands. purposes. The resultant Barrier Island Policy
Figure 3 depicts the distribution of the 40 was approved and adopted on June 24,1986.
applications, as well as the Commission% Figure 3 shows a highly variable, but decreas-
actions for each of the 12 years since 1980. ing trend in the number of coastal primary sand
Only two of the 40 applications submitted dune applications submitted to VMRC. While
entailed proposed activities somewhere other the data indicate a slight increase during 1989
than Cedar Island. During 1992 two applica- and 1990, there were no applications submitted
Figure 3 - Coastal- Primary Sand Dune Applications for for proposed construction on Cedar Island after
Virginia's Barrier Islands, 1980 - 1992. 1990. Applications submitted in 1992 were for
proposed activities on Wallops and Assateague
of Appkabra Islands.

maw
14 M1Au#wfl:md Thirty-eight Cedar1sland applications were
12 DOwded submitted for consideration between 1985 and
io CIWN 1990,23 were authorized, 9 were denied, and 6
were determined, after review, not to require a
permit (NPN). Authorized construction activi-
ties, therefore, could have potentially occurred
at 23 separate locations on Cedar island.
80 61 82 83 84 85 86 87 98 89 90 91 92
Year Twentymone of the 23-Authorized projects were
actually initiated during 1985-90. Approximate-
- ly 70% of those structures, however, have either
tions were submitted for proposed activities on been relocated or destroyed as a result of the
Wallops and Assateague Islands. natural migration or rollover process.
During theperiod between 1980 and 1984 The projects that have not been moved or
located on the southern
there were no coastal primary sand dune appli- destroyed are priman
cations from the Eastern Shore filed in VMRC's end of the island. Short-,termshoreline position
7
C3

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

changes indicate that this section of the island were reported to be ten feet above normal.
is actually acereting (VIMS, 1989). Newly con- Several cottages on Cedar Island were
structed and relocated cottages have remained destroyed, while significant damage was
fairly secure along the southern reach of Cedar reported at the Wallops Island Flight Facility
Island due to the wide beach and substantial and along Assateague Island further to the
primary sand dune. In addition, southern north.
Cedar Island may benefit from being in the lee
of northern Parramore Island. Southerly winds Northern Cedar Island
and waves may be dampened by Parramore
Island and the ebb tidal shoal associated with The northern region of Cedar Island today
Wachapreague Inlet. bears scant resemblance to what existed during
the mid-1980's. Distinct primary and secondary
dunes, along with a wide beach and backshore,
Project Review and Evaluation were present during the 1986 construction boom.
However, northern Cedar Island, from 1985 to
present, has migrated landward at a rate of
For the purpose of discussion, the following approximately 30 m6rr, flattening the dunes,
chapter will separately address three distinct creating washover fans and eliminating all
regions of Cedar Island; the northern region, evidence of any previous human-related distur-
approximately 2.4 kni in length and bounded by bances.
Metomkin Inlet, a central region approximately Ten projects authorized under the Barrier
3.6 kni in length; and the southem 3.2 km Island Policy were actually constructed within
stretch bounded by Wachapreague Inlet the northern region of Cedar Island between
(Figure 4). 1985-89. All of these previously disturbed
So that the investigations and findings of this construction sites were visited during this study
study can be placed in proper context, a sum- to record any observable human-related impacts
mary of the climatic events that occurred during and determine how effective the Policy may
late 1991 and early 1992 is necessary. During have been at minimizing those impacts to the
the period, several significant storms passed coastal primary sand dunes and beaches. Out of
along the Virginia coastline that caused substan- the ten structures, eight were moved to central
tial damage. On October 31, 1992, the "Hallow- or southern Cedar Island, while the remaining
een Storm" brought unusually high water condi- two structures were only partially constructed
tions, including storm surge and waves. As before being destroyed by natural forces.
Hurricane Bob passed along the continental The only remains of the authorized structures
shelf on October 31 headed north, strong winds are the foundation pilings which supported
forced shelf water onshore and raised sea level several cottages. These pilings have been
approximately five feet above normal. In addi- stranded in the Atlantic Ocean by the rapidly
tion, aerial reconnaissance on the day of the migrating island. VMRC, by utilizing the
storm provided the opportunity to observe five enforcement powers of the Barrier Island Policy
to eight-foot waves and much of the Eastern. and Title 28.2 of the Code of Virginia, has
Shore barrier islands under water. directed that these structures be removed in
A typical noreaster enveloped the area their entirety. Several problems were encoun-
during the weekend following the Halloween tered during this effort, one of which was deter-
Storm, taking advantage of the weakened mining what lot and owner the remnant pilings
natural shoreline defenses. On January 4, were associated with. The primary logistical
1992, an exceptionallystrong noreaster struck problem faced by the property owners was how
the northern. region of the Eastern Shore. to remove the pilings from the nearshore zone.
Water levels at Wallops Island Flight Facility

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

Identifying remnant pilings in the future Central Cedar Island
could be accomplished by affudng some type of
identification to the pilings, or requiring a The long-term migration rate for central
detailed plan of the pilings configuration be Cedar island, although not as great as that at
submitted once the pilings had been installed. the north end, is still reported to be around
The most desirable solution to the stranded 4.8 m/yr. During the period between 1986 and
piling problem would be to have the pilings 1991, the shoreline has migrated landward 119 m,
completely removed from the upland at the time or approximately 24 m/yr. As a result, the
of relocation or destruction. In the past, coastal primary sand dune has been destroyed
however, the pilings have apparently been cut and redistributed along the shore and across the
at or just below dune level and then covered by island in some areas as overwash fans.
sand. This makes it very difficult during follow.
up compliance inspections to determine whether Between 1986 and 1990, six cottages were
or not complete removal has been accomplished. authorized and constructed under the Barrier
With stricter compliance monitoring-and inspec- Island Policy in the central region of Cedar
tions at the time of relocation or immediately Island. All of those project sites were evaluated
after destruction, it may be possible to minimize to determine whether they were in compliance
this type of incident in the future. with their permits and what impacts may have
occurred to the coastal primary sand dunes and
Jt is difficult, if not impossible, to determine beaches. The investigations revealed that only
what impactathe construction projects may two of the six authorized structures were still
have had on the coastal features and processes habitable and situated on their originally per-
associated with the north end of-Cedar Island. mitted sites. The other structures have either
Qualitatively, it appears that the natural proc- been destroyed, relocated, or deemed uninhabit-
esses are continuing at such a rate and intensity able by the Health Department due to recent
that any man-made structures placed in the damage to the septic disposal systems.
way are incidental. Pedestrian access points The two cottages located on their originally
over the dunes, sand fencing, pilings, and low-
density single family cottages-have played a permitted sites were within the predetermined
rather insignificant role when viewed in rela- (ortrigger) distance to mean high water (prede-
tion to the natural processes. termined distance is approximately 48 m for
central Cedar Island). As stated in the Barrier
Had the 1990 Policy setback criteria -from the 1sland Policy, "once local mean high water
dune crest (20 times the local 100 year -long-term approaches a structure to within 10 times the
annual shoreline recession rate) been applied to average recession rate, a plan for its movement
the 1986 structures on the -north -end; of Cedar or relocation must besubmitted:f0freview."
Island they would have been constructed In accordance with the Policy, VNIRC has
approximately 122 m from the dune crest. Even requested submittal of relocation -plans from the
so-, they would onlyjust recently have two property owners since their cottages are
become situated on the beach. While this would now located less-than 48 m from*the mean high
have possibly added an additional two years to water position.
the life of-the structures -and given the property
owners more time to formulate alternative After reviewing the permit issued for one of -
plans, it would not have eliminated the inevita- the above-mentioned. properties, it appears that
ble. Maximizing the setback distance is preferw the setback distance from the crest of the
coastalprimary:sand dune to the septic system
able as long as the lots have the available -
was approximately 30 m. Under the present
upland. Many of the platted lots, however, do
not -contain enough highland property to allow regulations of the Barrier Island Policy, the
for-the required setback standards set forth in required setback distance is close to 90 m. This
the 1990 Policy. setback would have been enough to preserve the

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

structure for several years under the current During the early 190016, the Island House
conditions. The lot also appeared to contain Hotel on southern Cedar Island was a popular
enough upland to accommodate the setback vacation spot drawing visitors from all over the
distance prescribed by the revised Policy. country. The southern portion of the island also
became the site for several small private
The most southern cottage within the central cottages. Most of these structures, however,
region is still standing, but uninhabitable since were destroyed by the storms of the 1930's, or
it is now located adjacent to a recently formed relocated to the mainland.
inlet and the mean high water position. The
Policy did not intend for the relocation criteria Due to the relative, short-term stability
to apply to structures threatened by the lateral exhibited over the past 25 years, southern
movement of newly formed breaches or inlets. Cedar Island has again become the site for low-
It is apparent from the recently formed inlet on density construction activities. The develop-
Cedar Island, however, that the Policy should ment, however, has intensified over the past
also address structure location/relocation with five years since the north and central portions
respect to inlets and breaches of the barrier of the island have experienced severe erosion
islandasystems. and rollover. Approximately ten structures
have been constructed, or relocated from the
Both the central and northern regions lacked north,since the adoption of the Barrier Island
a defined coastal primary sand dune during this Policy. Most of the cottages are situated far
investigation. It appears the migration rates for enough behind the primary sand dune that
the past few years have vastly exceeded the authorization under the Coastal Primary Sand
island's natural ability to repair and reconstruct Dune Act was averted. Permits have been
its dunes. Without conducting a detailed, quan- issued, however, for permanent and temporary
titative sediment budget analysis, however, access crossings of the coastal primary sand
it is impossible to determine why the coastal dune, and for the installation of septic disposal
primary sand dune no longer exists along the systems.
central and northern regions of the island. In
our opinion, human-related activities are
having little discernible impact on the coastal Discussion
primary sand dunes and beaches relative to
the natural migration or rollover processes.
Southern Cedar Island Accesg &mpg
The long-term migration rate for southern The only access ramps to remain intact after
Cedar Island is approximately 4.1 m/y, but the the storms of 1991 and 1992 were located on
short-term data indicate the southern portion of southern Cedar Island. Efforts in evaluating
the island is actually accreting at approximately the impacts related to access ramps, therefore,
2.1 m/yr. The beach profile of southern Cedar focused on the structures that remained on the
Island has a very wide, but flood-prone back- relatively stable southern end of the island.
shore. The coastal primary sand dune is fairly Temporary disturbances to the primary dune
continuous with heights exceeding 4 in. Land- occurs while building materials are transported
ward of the primary sand dunes are extensive over the primary dune to the construction site.
secondary and tertiary dune systems, which Those impacts can be minimized through the
ultimately grade into the marsh/lagoon complex use of access ramps. Authorization for tempo-
found behind the barrier islands. The south end rary access ramps is always contingent upon the
of Cedar Island has a wide variety of coastal permittee agreeing to restore the dune to its
geomorphological features that are generally pre-existing contours and revegetate with the
indicative of a sand-sufficient system. appropriate plants.

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

Each of the authorized structures on southern hazard to the public, and require enforcement
Cedar Island were investigated to determine if action in order to have the pilings removed and
they still existed, whether their performance the problem resolved. Therefore it seems
was adequate, what impacts they have had on unlikely that the use of open-pile elevated
the coastal primary sand dune, and how success- ramps will be encouraged during future projects.
ful were the restoration efforts. The investiga-
tions were carried out after the severe storm Restoration of the primary sand dune after
and high water conditions that occurred during removal of the temporary access ramps was
late 1991 and early 1992. evaluated during the study. Two temporary
construction access ramps were removed from
The permanent corduroy access roads did not the coastal primary sand dune in the southern
endure the high water conditions very well. region. The areas, as conditioned by the per-
Many were observed to be washed from the mits, were to be restored to their pre-existing
dune crossing in a landward direction. It contours and sprigged with the appropriate
appeared that the access roads may have even vegetation. R appeared in both instances that
channelized and accelerated the water being the affected areas had not been returned to
forced over the primary dune, causing consider- their pre-existing contours. Appropriate vegeta-
able scour. This could present a potential tion, however, appeared to have been sprigged,
problem if a septic disposal system is placed while natural vegetation was also successfully
within the dune and in the general vicinity of returning to the areas.
the access ramp. After witnessing the amount of damage
In concept, the access ramps are designed to caused by storm surge as it funneled through
funnel traffic through a single point of the dune the access points along the primary dune, it
rather than repeated crossings over a larger appears that restoring temporary access cross-
portion of the dune. In areas of accretion the ings to their pre-existing contours is important.
dune will typically increase in height, while Significant scouring of the dunes occurred as a
the access ramp remains at the level it was result of water channelling through the access
installed. The corduroy, or gapped ramp will areas, not to mention the potential impact to
also allow vegetation to grow between the adjacent septic disposal systems. Stricter en-
planks of the ramp as long as traffic is not too forcement of permit conditions related to resto-
great. Based on the evaluation of the structures ration could minimize those impacts.
and observations of breaching during the storm
conditions, it might be advisable to require the Septic Dispgsal S3mtems
owners of the access ramps to periodically The Virginia Department of Health, Eastern
remove the ramp and raise the elevation of the Shore Health District is responsible for the
ramp area to approximate that of the adjacent evaluation and issuance of permits for septic
dunes.
disposal systems on the Eastern Shore and the
All of the evaluated access ramps were of the barrier islands. In comparison to the islands,
corduroy design. The Policy, however, permits potential septic disposal sites on the "mainland"
the construction of both corduroy and open-pile are evaluated on their soils and whether they
elevated ramps. Although an open-pile elevated are a naturally occurring, non-fill material that
structure allows wind, water and sand to pass exhibits certain soil horizons indicative of
relatively undisturbed, and vegetation to grow leaching or percolation. The rate at which the
beneath, the pilings present a problem similar soil percolates can be measured, and is used
to the one encountered on the north end of primarily when determining the suitability of a
Cedar Island. Severe erosion or migration of site for the placement of a drain field.
the dune could leave the foundation pilings in Potential septic disposal sites on the barrier
an undesirable location, posing a potential islands, however, are not evaluated for their

Baffler Island Policy Assessment

Figure 4 - Vicinity Map of Cedar Island

4, 4

41
14 "etaNkla RAI"

12 e
N

Atlantic ocean

4 Burto" say

0 1992 Piping Plover Mat Sites

'k 0 VDB Bowling Stations

......... 1952 Cedar Island Shoreline

percolation rat4w, appeamrice of soil horizons or the single family cottages used on the barrier
the origin of the soil. The islands are continu- islands.
ously shifting their sands from one site to
another, therefore, soil horizons are unable to On May 5, 1992, the Eastem Shore Health
become established. Rather than measuring District conducted a survey of the 26 habitable
percolation rates, suitable septic disposal sites structures on Cedar Island and their sewage
are identiflied by the distance from the surface of disposal systems. The survey was conducted to
the sand to the elevation of the water table. evaluate the damage that may have occurred as
The difference should be at least 8 to 12-inches. a result of the recent inclement weather, and
In addition, there must be at least five feet of any effecta the failed systems may have had to
sandy material above the underlying marsh adjacent shellfish growing waters. Approid-
peat. With this criteria in hand, suitable septic mately ten septic systems were found to be
disposal sites are readily available for most of damaged and in violation of Virginia's

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

Figure 5 - Fecal Coliforni Concentrations for Burtons Bay
and Cedar bland

5Concenuation (#AOanl) *Smdm 14
4.7S . ........................................ 6-Statim 12 .....
I -Wftdonto
4.S . . .................................... 4.stadma ....
425 . ..... ... . ............... *StatIM6
4@ ... . ...... ........................

175 . ............... ........................

3.S - -------- .............. ........................
3.35 ....... *.......... .......... 4! ..............
3O@ N@, D@. JL F;b. Z; A@. " JL JL A@g. Sept.

October M1 - September 1M

Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations. Health, it appears that the moderate fluctua-
The District notified each property owner of tions in the bacteriological levels is driven
the alleged violation and requested the indi- mostly by rainfall and seasonal fluctuations in
viduals to submit plans to correct the identified water temperature. The data does show a slight
problems. increase in the concentration levels observed
during the fall of 1991 and early winter of 1992.
In addition to the failed septic systems identi- This dom coincide with'the months of high
fied by the District, this study noted the pres- water conditions and, most likely, the time
ence of dislocated septic tanks as a result of the during which Cedar Island septic systems expe-
high water conditions. The Barrier Island rienced failure. It is dif'ricult, however, to associ-
Policy requires that all septic tanks have an ate increased bacterial concentrations with
identification number affixed to the plastic tank failed Cedar Island septic systems, since there
to aid in the proper identification of its owner. are other potential local sources of contamina-
This procedure has apparently not been adhered tion.
to. The problem was discussed with the Eastern
Shore Health District and it is anticipated that In addition to the potential impacts to the
the District will also require that all future sep- adjacent waters, septic disposal systems on
tic tanks have the associated District permit southern Cedar bland were also evaluated to
number affixed thereto. determine their impacts on the coastal prim-
primary sand dune. As stated earlier, the evalu-
Water QUality ation was confined to southern Cedar Island
where a coastal primary sand dune still exists.
The Virginia Department of Health, Division Although many of the cottages on southern
of Shellfish Sanitation records monthly water Cedar bland were placed in areas that did not
quality information from numerous stations require a permit from the Commission, numer-
located in Burtons Bay, near Cedar Island ous septic disposal systems were entrenched
(Figure 4). Figure 5 depicts the concentration of within the coastal primary sand dune. Of the
fecal coliform bacteria from five of those several permitted sites evaluated, very few dis-
stations during the study period. After review- turbances to the primary dune were noticed.
S"@
--- --- --------
..............................
r .... -----------

ing the water quality data and discussing the Rezprigging efforts seemed to have varied
results with personnel from the Department of success, but natural recolonization occurred

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

very quickly for most of septic systems evalu- Piping plovers have pfimarily concentrated
ated. their nesting activity on northem Cedar Island.
All of the previously constructed cottages, and
Rn4angcnd SRacies associated human-related structures, have been
removed from this part of Cedar Island as a
The Barrier Island Policy requires that any result of the intense erosion. This area of Cedar
impacts to threatened and endangered species Island, however, has always been popular with
be given due consideration prior to permit boaters, fishermen, and beachcombers. In
authorization. MAlson's and piping plovers are addition to the humans, pets are often brought
the two bird species of greatest concern on along to the islands for recreational purposes.
Cedar Island. Physical encroachment by any It is suspected by researchers that these
structure onto nesting sites is prohibited. Time

Figure 6 - Piping Plover Pairs for Eastern Sbore,
Virginia 1988 - 1992

Number of Pairs
14 Eastsm Stio :8.MsUs - ..........
12 -Hogla -*Cobbls -Cadarls

10 ......................................... ... ...........

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

....... .. ........... .............
.......... * ..... *...*.... ... ......

2 ........ ........ .......

0
1988 I= 490 1991 1992
Year

of year restrictions, typically mid-Alarch combined activities may have been disruptive to
through September, are imposed on all construc- the piping plovers during the summer of 1992
tion activities through permit eDnditions. Spe- on Cedar Island.
cial consideration can be given for construction
and relocation activities as long as they are Figure 6, however, indicates that similar
approved and monitored by personnel from the trends were observed on adjacent islands
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. between the summers of 1991 and 1992. It is
likely that the highly destructive storms and
Figure 6 shows the number of piping plover subsequent erosion had a significant affect on
pairs observed on Cedar Island and other the success of the piping plovers during 1992.
adjacent barrier islands to the north and south Humn n-related activities do remain a concern
from 1988 to 1992. All of the depicted islands as evidenced by the signs posted and driving
showed slight increases in the number of plover corridors established around critical nesting
pairs from the summer of 1990 to that of 1991. sites along the islands.
The summer of 1992, following the high water
conditions of late 1991 and early 1992, had Over-Sand Vehicle Use
fewer observations of plover pairs on all of the
depicted islands except Assawoman Island. Vehicular traffic on Cedar bland and some
of the other barrier islands has long existed to
some degree, but at a low-level. It wasn!t until

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

Cedar Island was platted and sold in small extremely difficult to measure either their indi-
parcels that vehicles began to be used more vidual or climulative impacts on the islands
regularly on Cedar Island. As more and more coastal primary sand dunes and beaches. The
cottages were constructed on the island, the majority of the island has undergone extreme
problems associated with over-sand/offroad changes and approximately two thirds of the
vehicle use began to emerge. It is well known islands coastal primary sand dune no longer
that ATV's and other vehicles can quickly exist. Coastal erosion and island migration
destroy vegetation growing on the dunes and rates have exhibited significant increases when
cause that feature to destabilize and deflate. compared to historical rates. This study was
not able to determine whether the recent accel-
With the adoption of the Coastal Primary erated erosion and migration rates of Cedar
Sand Dune Act and even stricter regulations, Island were associated with the human-related
contained in the Barrier Island Policy, travel- activities that occurred during the mid-1980's.
ling over the coastal primary sand dune on the Severe erosion and island migration, however,
Eastern Shore barrier islands became explicitly were experienced all along the Delmarva Penin-
denounced. The Barrier Island Policy, adopted sula, which would indicate that the low-density
in 1986, provides a well-defined set of guidelines development on Cedar Island has had an incon-
that each individual property owner on Cedar sequential contribution to the overall geomor-
Island could follow. The Policy's vehicular regu- phological changes observed there.
lations have been in effect since it's adoption,
but a permitting system and enforcement proce- The placement of low-density structures,
dure has never been established. This is due, in including the recently damaged or destroyed
part, to the Commissions anticipation of fewer septic disposal systems, has caused no observ-
vehicles on Cedar Island since construction able impacts to the adjacent waters monitored
activities were beginning to lessen during the by the Health Department. Future septic
late-1980's. Fortunately, impacts to endangered disposal tanks will have the appropriate identifi-
species have been minimized by posting signs cation number affixed thereto. Threatened and
and flagging driving corridors. endangered species (piping plover) populations
were relatively stable between 1988 and 1990.
With the recent acknowledgment of acceler- The number of pairs increased, however, two-
ated migration rates, it appears that vehicle fold in 1991, but decreased proportionally in
status and condition information could enhance 1992. Recent declines are more than likely a
the Commissions ability to have a vehicle repercussion of the storms and overwash that
removed from the island before the vehicle severely impacted plover habitat during the
becomes abandoned. It is the finding of this study period. It was evident that uncontrolled
study that a no-cost annually renewable vehicu- public access on the northern point of Cedar
lar permit form be devised which will be pro- Island may be detrimental to those species.
vided to all existing and proposed vehicle own- Continued coordination with the Department of
ers on Cedar Island, and that a permit tracking Game and Inland Fisheries regarding oonstruc-
system be initiated. A possible format for the tion access, relocation plans, time-of-year restric-
over-sand vehicle permit application has been tions, and vehicular traffic is essential.
included at the back of this document
(see attachment). Furthermore, this study recognizes the need
for stepped-up project compliance and monitor-
ing efforts. Construction debris must be
Summary and Recommendations completely removed from the site following
construction or relocation. Temporary and per-
manent access roads over the coastal primary
After conducting an island-wide evaluation of sand dune should be of the corduroy type, not
the structures placed on Cedar Island, it was open-pile design, and they should be located as

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

far from the septic disposal system as possible. Dolan, R., 1986. Shoreline Erosion and Cedar
Permit and dune restoration conditions within Island. Unpublished report.
access areas should be monitored and enforced
more closely. Stauble, Donald X, 1989. Barrier Islands:
Dynamic Coastal Landforms Requiring Complex
Setback criteria incorporated in the revised Management Decisions. In: Stauble, Donald K.
1990 Barrier Island Policy should contribute and Magoon, Orville T., (eds.), Barrier Islands:
significantly to the life-span of the cottages and Process and Managgment. ASCE, New York,
their appurtenances. Pre-1990 permitted struc- N.Y. pp 63-77.
tures were sometimes inundated, if not
destroyed, by the Atlantic Ocean prior to comple- Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1989.
tion. The revised Policy should at least enable Shoreline Recession Rates. Unpublished data.
the property owner to complete construction and
utilize the structure for several years before Virginia Department of Game and Inland
contemplating relocation. The Policy does not Fisheries, 1992. Piping Plover Data. Unpub-
specifically address lateral setback or move- lished data.
ment/relocation criteria from existing or newly Virginia Department of Health, Eastern
formed breaches and inlets. This may become a Shore Shellfish , 1992. Water Quality Data.
legitimate concern if the island becomes more Unpublished data.
and more deficient of sand. If that occurs,
breaches and inlets, although mostly ephem-
eral, will begin to occur more regularly. It is
the recommendation of this report, therefore,
that future revisions to the Policy include addi-
tional criteria to address the lateral setback dis-
tance and movement/relocation from inlets and
breaches.

Lastly, this report recognizes the need for a
bonafide vehicular permit tracking system. The
system would allow for easier identification of
vehicles, current information on vehicle operat-
ing status, and hopefully reduce the number of
vehicles and their impacts to resources of the
barrier islands. A recommended vehicle permit
application form has been attached to back of
this report (see attachment).

Bibliography

Byrnes, Mark R., Kathryn J. Gingerich, Su-
zette M. Kimball, and George R. Thomas, 1989.
Temporal and Spatial Variations in Shoreline
Migration Rates, Metomkin Island, Virginia. In:
Stauble, Donald K. and Magoon, Orville T.,
(eds.), Barrier Islands: Process and Manage-
mgat. ASCE, New York, N.Y. pp 78-92.

Barrier Island Policy Assessment

.......... - -----
V I R G I N I A ......... ..............
I........... .......... .............
.... . ....... ..... . ................. . . ..... .. ...
?-'rF1 - ........ ...
.. .. ....
-RZ
T tr
..... ..... . .....
.....................

General Criteria

Dune Crossings

No cuts through the dune will be permitted. TemRgraly vehicular access for purposes of construction
will be permitted only by corduroy ramps or open-pile ramps. Permits for temporary vehicular a
ramps will be limited as necessary to protect significant natural resources. Temporary construction
vehicles and access ramps must be removed and the dune restored to its pro-existing contours and
revegetated. All plans for temporary construction access must be specified in the application for any
construction permit. Permanent vehicle access across the dune will be perinited only by corduroy or
open-pile ramps. A temporary access ramp developed for the purposes of construction access may
remain in place for permanent access if it is specifically approved.

Beach Access

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 conditions:

� 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.
� The permit number for each vehicle shall be displayed in two foot high letters on the roof and
sides of the vehicle.
� 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.
� 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 the
low water shall be considered a violation of the Policy.
� 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.
� All terrain vehicles (AT%"a) will not be permitted.
� Evidence of vehicle 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.

Qmratwg Tim

� lower tire pressure to 15 pounds * doet drive in salt water * use CB channel 9 for emergencies
� carry four boards for placement under each tire when stuck 9 after stopping vehicle, back up
several feet before proceeding forward # do not spin your tires when stuck carry water
displacement spray for drying wet engine electrical parts

,Over-sand Vehicle Reeistration

On which barrier island will you be driving your vehicle?

How will you be transporting your vehicle to the island, and where will
the vehicle be loaded and unloaded?

What is the tax parcel number of your property9 Lot

Is there a vehicle access ramp over the dune at this property9 Y- N-
If yes, please provide Coastal Primazy Sand Dune Permit Number
CPSD Permit #

Vehicle Make Model License

Vehicle Identification Number (VIN#)

Vehicle Color Four Wheel Drive Y N

Engine Type: Eight cylinder Six cylinder Four cylinder

Please complete this form and return to :
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
P.O. Box 756
Newport News, Virginia 23607

Each individual application will be considered and a letter of authorization including
the vehicle registration number will be forwarded once approved.

For information regarding vehicle use on Federally-owned beaches on the Eastern
Shore send inquiries to:
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 62
Chincoteague, VA 23336

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111913 3