Proactive Planning for Resilience: Protocols for Community-Led Climate Adaptation in Virginia

Step 2: Strategy Development

Evaluate Options for Each Adaptation Focus Area

Actions

1. Assess the options available to address the locality’s current and predicted risks and vulnerabilities for each Adaptation Focus Area (infrastructure, social resilience/ health and wellbeing, economy, emergency planning and response, and historic, cultural and natural resources). Take into account the community’s budget, priorities, “tipping points” and timeline, as well as changing conditions due to climate change. For example, the City of Alexandria, Virginia is building underground tunnels to hold overflows from its combined sewer system, and has designed the new system based on modeled expected precipitation through the year 2100 to ensure it can handle the number and intensity of storms likely to occur over the coming decades.¹

2. Engage the community to develop strategies to address each Adaptation Focus Area. Include short and long-term goal setting and success metrics. Determine which options will be pursued, and in what order. For each selected option, conduct a feasibility assessment (benefit/cost analysis, degree of difficulty of implementation, effectiveness and longevity of the result, and potential funding sources). Prioritized options should include a focus on specific locations and risks.

Local governments have three choices to adapt to climate change impacts in vulnerable areas: reduce or prevent development there; implement adaptation and mitigation measures to reduce risks for residents and structures already located within vulnerable areas; and relocate residents and businesses away from vulnerable areas when the risk becomes too great. Localities have many options that they can pursue for each of these choices, some of which are discussed in detail below. Each community will have different, individualized needs and plans.
An approach pursued today may not be the community’s choice tomorrow, as physical and economic conditions change, so strategies and plans need to be revisited periodically (see Step 5). For some helpful case studies, see the Adaptation Stories on the Virginia Institute of Marine Science’s Adaptva website and the NC Resilience Exchange’s Success Stories page.

3. Include key partners, alliances and collaborations needed to accomplish the work.

¹ See After $615 Million and 16 Months of Tunneling, Alexandria, Virginia, Is Close to Fixing Its Sewage Overflow Problem – Inside Climate News, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20082024/alexandria-virginia-sewage-overflow-problem/.]

Best Practices

Look for cross-cutting strategies that meet multiple goals, like green infrastructure that stops erosion and provides flood buffering, natural habitat and public water access. Localities can launch native tree planting programs in urbanized areas to provide shade for relief from extreme heat, water filtration, soil stabilization and erosion control, natural habitat, and even crops of fruit or nuts for the community’s use.
Look for partnerships with other localities or external partners to expand local government efforts.
Measures to reduce risks should trigger a reduction in the cost of risk transfer (i.e., insurance), so local governments need to be able to determine how risk reduction measures translate into reducing costs for the public (and how that impacts the cost/benefit analysis for such measures).
A Helpful Resource: FEMA’s Mitigation Ideas: A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards.

Community Engagement Concerns

When seeking community input, don’t impose upon impacted communities the task of developing solutions on their own to problems that they did not create on their own. Provide them with adequate resources and staff support.
Discriminatory history and its impacts on a community must be acknowledged in order to be addressed and not perpetuated in resilience plans. After community engagement sessions discussing traumatic history, consider providing counseling for participants from highly impacted EJ areas.
When considering which options to incorporate into the strategy, it is important to take into account potential disproportionate impacts on environmental justice and physically or socially vulnerable communities.
A community’s willingness to pursue certain options will change with time and evolving risk level, so developing strategies is an iterative process.
Sometimes equity concerns arise as the side effects of adaptation or mitigation efforts. For example, residents of a socially vulnerable community may be concerned about the potential gentrification of their neighborhood if it is located on higher, less flood prone ground; urban tree planting programs can bring associated costs of tree maintenance that some residents cannot afford; and only landowners – not renters, and potentially not heirs property owners (see Heirs Property discussion in Approach 3) – reap tax benefits from conservation easements or land donations, which may perpetuate inequities among communities.

Mitigation and Adaptation Approaches

The following is a discussion of the major mitigation and adaptation options available to communities in Virginia, including some best practices and innovative ideas. Options are distributed among three different approaches: reducing risk by limiting development and preserving green space in high risk areas; reducing risk by undertaking mitigation and adaptation measures; and planning for relocation away from the risk. Local governments can pursue a combination of these approaches in their adaptation plans.

Approach I

Approach II

Approach III

Innovative Ideas

Virginia Sea Grant's Coastal Virginia Water Adaptation & Innovation Campus

The Virginia Sea Grant’s (VASG) Coastal Virginia Water Adaptation & Innovation Campus is using collaborative, public-private R&D to create innovative technologies that address both short-term adaptation needs and long-term climate change impacts for coastal communities. In the past, VASG has partnered with organizations such as the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation to develop innovative, though unimplemented, ideas such as 3D Printed Biomimicry Living Breakwater Plates. Private-public partnerships from this program have sought to rebuild oyster reefs, create more sustainable concrete mixes, and develop above-ground septic systems that won’t be subject to flooding impacts. For more information, visit the VASG Coastal Virginia Water Adaptation & Innovation Campus website. There is a need for innovative ideas to build resilience in the face of accelerating sea level rise and increasing heat and severe storms. But new technology often faces permitting challenges. Organizations such as VASG are exploring the concept of research permits to test new technologies and obtain the data needed for the approval and implementation of these innovations.

Under Consideration in Virginia: Reuse of Religious Organizations’ Unused Land

When communities must relocate residents from vulnerable areas, they also face the need to find them safe, affordable housing on higher ground. One possibility is to convert urban and suburban religious organizations’ unused land and parking lots to affordable, safe housing. The Virginia Faith in Housing for the Commonwealth Act, Senate Bill 233 (introduced by Senator Hashmi during the 2024 General Assembly Session, and carried over to 2025), would enable that approach by authorizing a religious organization to build affordable housing on land that it owns, notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of the locality’s plan, zoning ordinance or regulation, as long as the religious organization retains majority ownership and an experienced nonprofit organization manages the housing development.

Rolling Easement Proffers

Rolling easements can be used in other states to limit development in conjunction with rising sea levels, or to ensure public access to beaches. The easements “roll” incrementally, utilizing markers, such as mean high water, to determine when requirements or restrictions kick in.¹ For example, the Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) provides for rolling public access to beaches; it protects the public’s “free and unrestricted right of ingress and egress to and from” public beaches along the Gulf Shore, as demarcated by the shifting vegetation line. Specifically, TOBA authorizes county and district attorneys to file for injunctions “to remove or prevent any . . . encroachment on a public beach.” Notably, due to the Texas Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Severance v. Patterson, 370 SW 3d. 705, Tex. Supreme Court (2012), TOBA’s rolling easements do not automatically map onto beaches eroded by sudden weather events, although they can follow gradual, natural shoreline shifts. Now, post-Severance, Texan localities may still utilize TOBA to prohibit the construction of new structures and require the removal of existing structures that obstruct public access due to gradual sea-level rise.²

Another example is the State of Maine, which implements rolling easements at the coast in three ways. First, development is not permitted if, “after allowing for a two foot rise in sea level over 100 years,” it would likely be “severely damaged.” ³ Second, no new seawalls may be constructed and existing ones may not be repaired, unless they are moved farther landward or would be less harmful to the sand dune system.⁴ Third, if the shoreline recedes so that “a coastal wetland . . . extends to any part of the structure . . . for a period of six months or more,” the structure must be removed within a year.⁵ In this way, development along Maine’s coast “rolls” with rising sea levels.

While the Virginia Code does not explicitly mention “rolling easements,” localities may wish to consult their counsel to determine whether they can use existing authority to implement rolling easements as voluntary proffers from developers (particularly for commercial development) in areas predicted to experience significant sea level rise impacts over time. As further explanation of this concept, see the Rolling Easements discussion for an outline of relevant authorities currently set forth in the Virginia Code and common law that could be used to support the concept of a voluntary rolling easement proffer in Virginia.

¹See generally James G. Titus, “EPA Climate Ready Estuaries series, Rolling Easements primer,” Environmental Protection Agency, June 2011, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rollingeasementsprimer.pdf. See also Jim Morrison, “In Norfolk, an Environmental Headquarters Plans to Live with the Water, then Surrender to Reality,” Virginia Mercury, January 18, 2024, https://virginiamercury.com/2024/01/18/in-norfolk-an-environmental-headquarters-plans-to-live-with-the-water-then-surrender-to-reality. (featuring innovative rolling easement on the Elizabeth River Project’s waterfront headquarters property in Norfolk, triggered by the average water level rising a certain amount over current levels).
² Richard J. McLaughlin, “Rolling Easements as a Response to Sea Level Rise in Coastal Texas: Current Status of the Law After Severance v. Patterson,” Journal of Land Use 26(2), (2011): 365, 390. https://www.cakex.org/sites/default/files/documents/mclaughlin.pdf. See also Erica Novack, “Resurrecting the Public Trust Doctrine: How Rolling Easements Can Adapt to Sea Level Rise and Preserve the United States Coastline,” Environmental Affairs 43(575), (2016): 575, 602, https://dashboard.lira.bc.edu/downloads/ca4500b0-4702-4373-a34a-12dc41a805db.
³ ME Coastal Sand Dune Rules, 06- 096 C.M.R. ch. 355, § 5(C) – Standards for all projects. https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/maine/06-096-C-M-R-ch-355-SS-5.
⁴ Ibid., Ch. 355(5)(E).
⁵ ME Coastal Sand Dune Rules, 06- 096 C.M.R. ch. 355, § 10(A) – Standard conditions of permits. https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/maine/06-096-C-M-R-ch-355-SS-10.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act Expansion

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)¹ is a federal statute that encourages conservation and discourages development in vulnerable coastal areas by rendering such areas within the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) ineligible for critical forms of federal funding and financial assistance.² Areas within the CBRS may still be developed, but non-federal parties must bear the full financial cost of doing so.³ Currently, the CBRS covers approximately 3.5 million acres of coastal habitat across the country,⁴ including 165,589 acres in Virginia along the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast.⁵ Not only has the CBRA saved taxpayers $9.5 billion in disaster payments, but it has also preserved important buffers against flooding—it is estimated that, nationwide, coastal wetlands provide over $23 billion worth of storm protection services annually.⁶ In September 2023, Congresswoman Jen Kiggans (VA-02) introduced H.R. 5490, the Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm (BEACH) Act, in Congress.⁷ This bipartisan bill would provide the requisite congressional approval for the addition to the CBRS of 96,435 acres in Virginia identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.⁸ Localities interested in this tool as a means to expand protection for vulnerable coastal areas and limiting the threats to human safety and buildings in those areas can track the progress of the BEACH Act in Congress. A 2023 study commissioned by the Lincoln Institute found that a CBRS designation reduced development by 85% as compared to development within a control unit, even in CBRS units facing high development pressure from nearby metro areas.⁹ For more information on the BEACH Act, see https://kiggans.house.gov/posts/kiggans-introduces-bill-to-support-coastal-virginias-ecosystem-save-taxpayer-dollars-2.

¹ 16 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3510. ² U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “Coastal Barrier Resources Act,” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “Coastal Barrier Resources Act,” https://www.fws.gov/program/coastal-barrier-resources-act#:~:text=We%20administer%20the%20Coastal%20Barrier,Barrier%20Resources%20System%20(CBRS). ³ Ibid. ⁴ Ibid. ⁵ Congresswoman Jen Kiggans, “Kiggans Introduces Bill to Support Coastal Virginia’s Ecosystem, Save Taxpayer Dollars,” September 26, 2023, https://kiggans.house.gov/posts/kiggans-introduces-bill-to-support-coastal-virginias-ecosystem-save-taxpayer-dollars-2. (citing Coburn A. S. and J. C. Whitehead, “An Analysis of Federal Expenditures Related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982,” Journal of Coastal Research, March 15, 2019.) ⁶ R. Costanza et al., “The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Hurricane Protection,” Ambio 1, (2008), https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Value-of-Coastal-Wetlands-for-Hurricane-Costanza-P%C3%A9rez-Maqueo/d28899300d99f0a5355f56b05830cec2386958b9?p2df. ⁷ H.R. 5490 (118th Cong.), https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr5490/BILLS-118hr5490ih.pdf. ⁸ Congresswoman Kiggans, 2023 (See 5). ⁹ Hannah Druckenmiller et al., “Can Removing Development Subsidies Promote Adaptation? The Coastal Barrier Resources System as a Natural Experiment,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, May 2023, https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/working-papers/can-removing-development-subsidies-promote-adaptation. See also “A Natural Experiment Hints at an “Elegant Approach” to Climate Adaptation,” Wetlands Watch, September 27, 2023, https://wetlandswatch.org/directors-blog/2023/9/27/wetlands-watch-testifies-in-support-of-coastal-barrier-resources-system-expansion-and-pilot-program-on-sea-level-rise.