Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons^™

What Drives Property Owners To Modify Their Shorelines? A Case Study Of Gloucester County, Virginia, Sarah Stafford, Amanda Guthrie

VIMS Articles

This analysis uses data from a survey of shoreline property owners combined with data on shoreline modification permits to examine whether and how property owners modify their estuarine shorelines. We find that shoreline armoring is very popular among property owners that choose to modify their shoreline. While living shorelines are less common, applications for them are increasing both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of all shoreline modification requests. A number of different issues factor into the shoreline modification decision including effectiveness, cost, aesthetics, and property values. More valuable parcels are more likely to be modified, as are parcels …

Embracing Dynamic Design For Climate-Resilient Living Shorelines, Molly Mitchell, Donna M. Bilkovic

VIMS Articles

As natural marshes are lost to erosion, sea level rise, and human activity, small created marshes, (sometimes with ancillary stabilization structures, and frequently called living shorelines) have gained interest as a replacement habitat; providing both shoreline stabilization and restoration of important ecological functions. These living shorelines enhance ecological function while reducing erosion through the use of marsh plants (Table 1). In all but the lowest energy settings, oyster reefs, low rock structures, or other stabilizing material are frequently used to enhance marsh establishment. Due to their ability to stabilize the shoreline with minimal impact to the ecology, living shorelines are …

Tangier Island, Virginia Shoreline Management Plan For The West Coast Of The Uppards, C. Scott Hardaway Jr.

Reports

Utilizing geo-rectified aerial photography from 1938, 1960, 1987, and 2001, shoreline change rates were determined along the Uppards. Shoreline change rates vary but are all erosional except for areas around the north end where sand bars come and go. In the area of concern between baseline stations 4000 and 4600, the rates of erosion have increased with time. Using the rate calculated from the 1938 to 2001 shorelines for station 4000, 16 ft/yr, the 400 ft marsh isthmus width between the shoreline and Toms Gut would breach in about 25 years. This would essentially break the Uppards in two and …

Environmental Survey Of Potential Sand Resource Sites, Offshore Delaware And Maryland : Final Report, Virginia Institute Of Marine Science

Reports

• Technical summary / Carl H. Hobbs
• Non-technical summary / Carl H. Hobbs
• Part. 1. Benthic mapping and resource evaluation of potential sand mining areas, offshore Mayland and Delaware, 1998-1999 / G.R. Cutter and R.J. Diaz
• Part. 2. Transitory species (vertebrate nekton) / John A. Musick
• Part. 3. Literature survey of reproductive finfish and ichthyoplankton present in proposed sand mining locations within the Middle Atlantic Bight / John Olney, Donna Marie Bilkovic
• Part. 4. Potential modifications to waves due to dredging and other oceanographic considerations / Jerome P.-Y. Maa, Sung C. Kim
• Part. 5. Maryland-Delaware shoreline : long-term trends and short-term …

Chesapeake Bay Baseline Data Acquisition Appendix Xi: Shoreline Erosion, Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Incorporated, University Of Maryland, Center For Environmental And Estuarine Studies, Virginia Institute Of Marine Science

Reports

No abstract provided.