Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Valuing present and future benefits provided by coastal wetlands and living shorelines(Nature-Based Solutions, 2025-12) Bilkovic, Donna Marie; Scheld, Andrew; Isdell, Robert; Mason, Pamela; Stafford, Sarah; Mitchell, Molly; Gonzales-Dorantes, Cirse; Chambers, Randolph; Leu, Matthias; Musick, Susanna; Gregory, Sean; Hendricks, Jessica; Dada, Oluwakemi; Benson, GabrielMarshes are important natural capital assets for many coastal communities, providing a range of ecosystem services such as coastal protection, nutrient removal, habitat, and recreational opportunities. We explored the present and future distribution and economic value of tidal marsh (natural marsh and living shorelines) ecosystem services for coastal communities in Virginia, US, using an interdisciplinary mixed-methods, spatially explicit valuation approach. First, a benefit transfer analysis was conducted using literature-derived values adjusted for site-specific conditions. Then, two stated preference surveys were implemented, targeting recreational users and individuals engaged in shoreline management decision-making. We leveraged a wide range of spatial information on the local environment to both adjust values and also develop realistic scenarios in surveys. Survey responses were used to assess service values as well as tradeoffs in shoreline decisions. Marsh values were found to be a significant asset for communities, amounting to ∼$90M/yr in benefits, or 3.3 % of annual GDP for the region. Assuming marsh migration into undeveloped lands and the installation of living shorelines for coastal protection where suitable, future discounted service values were predicted to increase slightly. Marsh service values varied spatially, with storm risk reduction (the highest ranked service by community decision-makers) displaying the greatest variation. Recreational opportunities were ranked low by community decision-makers, yet recreational fishers placed a high value on marshes. This highlights that without consideration of locally important services, shoreline management decisions may unknowingly affect local economies. Valuing marsh services can improve social efficiency in shoreline management decisions while also advancing natural capital accounting.Item Virginia Accomplishments Since the 2008 Climate Action Plan Release(2014-12-01)Virginia has undertaken a variety of actions to mitigate the emission of greenhouse gasses and adapt to climate related changes to our weather, wildlife, and sea level. However, these changes have not been undertaken in a coordinated fashion, nor have they been in clear response to the recommendations of any entity that has approached the problem of climate change as a whole. Greenhouse gas mitigation has taken place in the form of a few policies to capture landfill gas, encourage limited energy efficiency, encourage growth of some renewable energy, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Additionally, good progress has been made in encouraging natural carbon sinks and increased forest land and land in agricultural production. The bulk of carbon reduction strategies suggested by prior commissions and reports were not implemented. Adaptation efforts have been more robust. Data collection has been steady and multiple entities including the Secure Commonwealth Panel, the Center for Coastal Resources Management at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Coastal Policy Clinic at William & Mary Law School, Old Dominion University’s Whole of Government effort, and many others have all been working to address the challenges of adaptation. These efforts have been fruitful individually but disjointed without a central coordinating body or figure. While opinions tend differ among stakeholders, there are areas of consensus among nearly all groups who have studied the state’s options and made recommendations for future action related to climate change. The consensus recommendations fall into six categories: 1) Identify a single entity to lead VA activities related to Climate Change; 2) Establish a state requirement for climate impact review; 3) Support local governments by establishing clear guidance on authority and liability related to climate adaptation; 4) Develop funding resources to support these efforts; 5) Continue to develop and improve available data; and 6) Conduct widespread and effective climate outreach. These consensus recommendations likely present an excellent starting point for the work of the Climate Change and Resiliency Commission’s work.Item Climate Change Impacts in Virginia: Status of Natural Resource Data Records as Tools to Assess Continuing Trends(2009-03-01) Rudnicky, Tamia; Berman, Marcia; Mann, Roger L.; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceAs scientists we pose the hypothesis that climate change over the past decades has left a signal in natural resource status and productivity in Virginia. This signal exists subsumed in a variety of data from crop and forestry production, to fishery landings, to spatial distribution of numerous plant and animal species of interest. Description of these signals in concert with known changes in climate descriptors (temperature, rainfall and more) provide a basis for hind-casting possible cause and effect relationships. If such relationships exist, and we hypothesize that they do, then projections of climate descriptors (temperature, rainfall and more) provide the basis for projections of impacts on defined natural resources, with obvious economic and societal impacts. Before a comprehensive analysis of extant data can occur we must start with a simple inventory of available data. As simplistic as this may sound we can find no single database that describes the general status of natural resources in Virginia over the past decades. Indeed, we suggest that the majority of such data exists as unpublished (in peer review, and in some instances even technical reports) compilations spread among the various state and federal natural resource agencies active in Virginia. This body of work had several goals; 1) to assess the scope of natural resource descriptive data available in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 2) to assemble an index of such data, and 3) develop a bibliography to serve as a resource for more comprehensive analyses in the future.Item Economic Implications of Alternative Management Strategies for Virginia Oysters and Clams(2008-10-01) Bosch, Darrell; Kuminoff, Nicolai V.; Harris, Anna; Pope, Jaren C.; Stephenson, Kurt; Mason, Pamela; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe Virginia shellfish industry has historically been an important element of the state’s economy. After long-term downward trends in the harvest of wild stocks, clam and oyster production from shellfish aquaculture has been growing. This report provides an analysis of the possible ways to support and enhance this expansion through a variety of shellfish policy options. Three general classes of policy alternatives were considered: 1) state policy to increase private grounds available for shellfish production, 2) state research and development programs, and 3) various financial incentives to increase production. In general, the availability of suitable lease ground is not a large barrier for expansion to oyster aquaculture. Thus, reforms to the state’s current leasing policy are unlikely to stimulate significant new production. Existing clam producers, however, identified ground availability as one of the most significant barriers to increasing production. Unlike existing larger producers, smaller clam growers were more likely to see ground availability as a barrier, providing supporting evidence that clam production would expand if more grounds were made available. In general a slight majority of active shellfish producers surveyed supported opening some of the current (unproductive) Baylor grounds to leased shellfish production. Shellfish aquaculture producers in general identified seed availability and poor water quality as major challenges to the industry. Both oyster and clam producers indicated that state policies to facilitate seed production and improve water quality would do the most to assist their operations. Some conflicts between shellfish growers and surrounding landowners have been widely publicized in the local media, but such conflicts do not appear to be a systematic or widespread obstacle for the industry. Less than 10 percent of oyster growers identified conflicts with surrounding property owners as the most important barrier limiting expansion of their operations. Clam growers expressed even less concern with land owner conflicts. State sponsored shellfish research has the potential to significantly benefit the oyster industry. Over half of all oyster growers indicated that development of triploid oysters and field trials verifying and testing new genetic strands of oysters would be the most useful lines of research. A firm level simulation analysis of oyster aquaculture operations provides additional support for these conclusions. Simulation results suggest that even small increases in oyster growth rates or reductions in oyster mortality can produce relatively large increases in rates of return on investment. Financial (price) incentives can be provided or facilitated by the state in a number of ways including direct and indirect subsidy programs, state supported efforts to enhance market margins (value-added through branding or ecolabeling), or payments for the water quality services provided by oysters. Each activity can potentially increase the effective price growers receive for their product. Based on survey results and economic modeling analysis, if these types of programs could provide relatively small increases in oyster prices then production could increase substantially. For instance a 5 cent increase in price (per oyster) may increase production between 50 and 60 percent. Clam producers may face a more significant offsetting price effect (downward pressure on clam prices) if production were to increase substantially.Item Identification of management strategies for promoting aquaculture in Virginia(2008-01-01) Mason, Pamela; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceItem Shellfish Aquaculture Suitability Within Baylor Grounds of the Lower Rappahannock River(2008-11-01)Should the Commonwealth of Virginia ever consider a regulated expansion of the aquaculture industry to public Baylor ground, timely information regarding the productivity of these grounds and the ability to support aquaculture would be highly desirable information. In this scenario, public bottom will be opened to private shellfish growers in the Commonwealth under what will likely be a tightly monitored regulation. The demise in productivity of natural oyster beds within Baylor Grounds is well known. However, there is no comprehensive resource that addresses whether Baylor Grounds would be suitable for aquaculture. This study uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to model suitable shellfish growing areas within the public Baylor Grounds. The model considers basic physical and biological conditions necessary for aquaculture success, potential ecological use conflicts, and the impacts that current land use has on suitable growing areas. The study uses data available from federal, state, and local government sources to derive salinity, bathymetry, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) distribution, water quality, oyster rock, and land use. A classification is scaled to reflect current conditions. The project focuses on Baylor Ground within the Lower Rappahannock River only. Results do not reflect conditions elsewhere in the Bay. The model results indicate that water depth in a large percent of the Baylor Ground in this particular area is too deep for most aquaculture operations. Salinity values in the river are generally too low for clam aquaculture. Oyster aquaculture appears to be the only viable shellfish growing opportunity on Baylor Grounds in the Lower Rappahannock River. The locations of preferred sites are depicted on maps.Item Shoreline Situation Report Isle of Wight County, Virginia(1975) Owen, Dennis W.; Williams, Gaynor B.; Peoples, Margaret H.; Hobbs, Carl H.; Anderson, Gary L.; Byrne, Robert J.; Zeigler, John M.; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceItem King George, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Methods and Guidelines(2008-01-01) Berman, Marcia; Berquist, Harry; Killeen, Sharon; Hershner, Carl; Nunez, Karinna; Reay, Karen; Rudnicky, Tamia; Schatt, Daniel E.; Weiss, David; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceItem Summary Tables: 2012 Henrico County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory(2012-01-01) Berman, Marcia; Berquist, Harry; Killeen, Sharon; Hershner, Carl H.; Nunez, Karinna; Reay, Karen; Rudnicky, Tamia; Schatt, Daniel E.; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe Shoreline Inventory Summary Tables quantify observed conditions based on river systems, such as the combined length of linear features (e.g. shoreline miles surveyed, miles of bulkhead and revetment), the total number of point features (e.g. docks, boathouses, boat ramps) & total acres of polygon features (tidal marshes).Item Shoreline Situation Report Henrico, Chesterfield, and Richmond(1975) Owen, Dennis W.; Peoples, Margaret H.; Anderson, Gary L.; Byrne, Robert J.; Hobbs, Carl H.; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceItem Regulatory Fidelity to Guidance in Virginia’s Tidal Wetlands Program(2012-12-01)The Commonwealth of Virginia manages its tidal wetlands resources through implementation of the Tidal Wetlands Act (Va. Code §28.2-1300 et seq.). This Act establishes a state-local regulatory program providing the option for local governments located in the coastal zone to voluntarily assume the primary responsibility for local implementation, through a citizen wetlands board, with oversight by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The Tidal Wetlands Act charges local wetlands boards with balancing the preservation and use of tidal wetlands in order to protect the ecosystem services they provide. In addition, Virginia has an established state policy of no-net loss of wetlands resources and is a partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program, committed to “achieve a no-net loss of existing wetlands acreage and function.” This means that if wetlands are lost due to development or shoreline stabilization, for example, then the resulting loss must be offset by creating a comparable amount of wetlands elsewhere. VMRC’s Tidal Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation Policy (Reg. 4 VAC 20-390-10 et seq.) requires wetlands boards to minimize or mitigate the loss of wetlands and the adverse ecological effects of all permitted activities when implementing the Tidal Wetlands Act. For the past 40 years, the Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has developed extensive guidance to assist local governments in making permit decisions to meet the intent and goals of the Tidal Wetlands Program. Most recently, guidance provided supports a management preference for strategies which incorporate the use of natural resources for shoreline protection and seek to more effectively balance public and private interests.Item Study of Tidal Shoreline Management in Virginia: Recommendations for living shorelines and tidal resources sustainability(2010-12-17)The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) was directed under Senate Joint Resolution 35, to conduct a study of tidal shoreline management in Virginia. The resolution directed four specific tasks to be included in the study: “(i) review tidal shoreline management in the Commonwealth and similarly situated states; (ii) identify potential changes to the regulatory structure of tidal shoreline management to reduce the cost and time required to issue a permit; (iii) identify regulatory innovations that would increase adoption of living shorelines among shoreline landowners; and (iv) make specific recommendations to achieve the sustained protection of tidal shoreline resources.” The Center for Coastal Resources Management at VIMS was delegated the responsibility for the study. We conducted detailed reviews of the shoreline management construct of Virginia along with three states: Massachusetts (is similar to Virginia with private property ownership to low water) and neighboring North Carolina and Maryland, and a less detailed review of other coastal states. The review was to assess models for use in Virginia that address multi-jurisdictional decision-making or living shorelines or both and at the same time, look for possible complications or ineffective programmatic efforts to avoid. The review enabled the identification of possible options for time and costs savings for permit issuance and supported the identification of regulatory innovations to increase the use of living shorelines. A look at the current shoreline management structure in Virginia and the future cast of adverse resource effects due to management decisions and natural losses calls for a comprehensive approach to achieve sustainability of shoreline resources.Item Chesterfield County and the Cities of Colonial Heights, Petersburg, and Richmond, Virginia - Shoreline Inventory Report: Summary Tables(2017-12-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Killeen, Sharon; Rudnicky, Tamia; Bradshaw, Julie; Duhring, Karen; Brown, Kallie; Hendricks, Jessica; Weiss, David; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe Shoreline Inventory Summary Tables quantify observed conditions based on river systems, such as the combined length of linear features (e.g. shoreline miles surveyed, miles of bulkhead and revetment), the total number of point features (e.g. docks, boathouses, boat ramps) & total acres of polygon features (tidal marshes).Item The County of Isle of Wight, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report: Summary Tables(2017-01-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Rudnicky, Tamia; Bradshaw, Julie; Duhring, Karen; Brown, Kallie; Hendricks, Jessica; Stanhope, David; Angstadt, Kory; Tombleson, Christine; Weiss, David; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe Shoreline Inventory Summary Tables quantify observed conditions based on river systems, such as the combined length of linear features (e.g. shoreline miles surveyed, miles of bulkhead and revetment), the total number of point features (e.g. docks, boathouses, boat ramps) & total acres of polygon features (tidal marshes).Item Spotsylvania County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report Summary Tables(2017-12-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Rudnicky, Tamia; Bradshaw, Julie; Duhring, Karen; Brown, Kallie; Hendricks, Jessica; Weiss, David; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe Shoreline Inventory Summary Tables quantify observed conditions based on river systems, such as the combined length of linear features (e.g. shoreline miles surveyed, miles of bulkhead and revetment), the total number of point features (e.g. docks, boathouses, boat ramps) & total acres of polygon features (tidal marshes).Item County of Spotsylvania, Virginia - Shoreline Inventory Report: Methods and Guidelines(2017-01-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Rudnicky, Tamia; Bradshaw, Julie; Duhring, Karen; Brown, Kallie; Hendricks, Jessica; Weiss, David; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe 2017Inventory for Spotsylvania County was generated using on-screen, digitizing techniques in ArcGIS® -ArcMap v10.4.1while viewing conditions observed in Bing high resolution oblique imagery, Google Earth, and2013imagery from the Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP).FourGIS shapefiles are developed.The first describes land use and bank conditions (Spotsylvania_lubc_2017). The second portrays the presence of beaches (Spotsylvania_beaches_2017). The third reports shoreline structures that are described as arcs or lines(e.g. riprap)(Spotsylvania_sstru_2017). The final shapefile includes all structures that are represented as points(e.g. piers)(Spotsylvania_astru_2017).The metadata file accompanies the shapefiles and defines attribute accuracy, data development, and any use restrictions that pertain to data.Item Isle of Wight County, Virginia - Shoreline Inventory Report: Methods and Guidelines(2017-01-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Rudnicky, Tamia; Bradshaw, Julie G.; Duhring, Karen; Brown, Kallie; Hendricks, Jessica; Stanhope, David; Angstadt, Kory; Tombleson, Christine; Weiss, David; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe 2017 Inventory for the Isle of Wight County was generated using on-screen, digitizing techniques in ArcGIS® -ArcMap v10.4.1while viewing conditions observed in Bing high resolution oblique imagery, Google Earth, and2013imagery from the Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP). Four GIS shapefiles are developed. The first describes land use and bank conditions (IsleofWight_lubc_2017). The second portrays the presence of beaches (IsleofWight_beaches_2017). The third reports shoreline structures that are described as arcs or lines(e.g. riprap)(IsleofWight_sstru_2017). The final shapefile includes all structures that are represented as points(e.g. piers)(IsleofWight_astru_2017).The metadata file accompanies the shapefiles and defines attribute accuracy, data development, and any use restrictions that pertain to data.Item Chesterfield County and the Cities of Colonial Heights, Petersburg, and Richmond, Virginia - Shoreline Inventory Report: Methods and Guidelines(2017-12-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Killeen, Sharon; Rudnicky, Tamia; Bradshaw, Julie G.; Duhring, Karen A.; Brown, Kallie; Hendricks, Jessica; Weiss, David; Hershner, Carl; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe 2017Inventory for Chesterfield County and the Cities of Colonial Heights, Petersburg, and Richmond was generated using on-screen, digitizing techniques in ArcGIS® -ArcMap v10.4.1while viewing conditions observed in Bing high resolution oblique imagery, Google Earth, and2013imagery from the Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP).Four GIS shapefiles are developed. The first describes land use and bank conditions (Chesterfield_lubc_2017). The second portrays the presence of beaches (Chesterfield_beaches_2017). The third reports shoreline structures that are described as arcs or lines(e.g. riprap)(Chesterfield_sstru_2017). The final shapefile includes all structures that are represented as points (e.g. piers)(Chesterfield_astru_2017).The metadata file accompanies the shapefiles and defines attribute accuracy, data development, and any use restrictions that pertain to data.Item Shoreline Situation Report York County Virginia(1975) Anderson, Gary L.; Williams, Gaynor B.; Peoples, Margaret H.; Rosen, Peter; Hobbs, Carl H.; Byrne, Robert J.; Zeigler, John M.; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceItem Summary Tables: York County, Virginia Shoreline Inventory Report(2013-01-01) Berman, Marcia; Nunez, Karinna; Killeen, Sharon; Rudnicky, Tamia; Hershner, Carl; Angstadt, Kory; Stanhope, David; Weiss, David; Duhring, Karen; Tombleson, Christine; Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceThe Shoreline Inventory Summary Tables quantify observed conditions based on river systems, such as the combined length of linear features (e.g. shoreline miles surveyed, miles of bulkhead and revetment), the total number of point features (e.g. docks, boathouses, boat ramps) & total acres of polygon features (tidal marshes).