[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
FINAL PRODUCT FY'94 Task 27 Elizabeth River Draft Watershed Action PIRO k-1 %14 'A Jw mww OW -. -,AqOL-;AL Aw Elizabeth River toration EXECUTWE SUMMARY Elizabeth River Pf0ject Elizabeth Riv- estoration A Watershed. Action, Plan'. Efi@abeth River to Restore the June'20, 1996. This p1do was reviewedApril26,1996 by 7he Elizabeth River -Prqjqct@ Leadership Review Board William Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation.- Linda R Koloddej, President, Virginia Audubon Council Dr-Donald E Boesch, President, Alliance for the Chesapeake Dr. Alan P Krasnoff, Chairman, Hampton Roads Planning District Bay Commission James R Borberg, General Manager, Hampton Roads Ronald W Massie, City Manager, City of Portsmouth I . Sanitation District William Matuszeski, Director, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Rear Admiral Robert S. Cole, Commander, Norfolk Naval Base Honorable 71somas W Moss, Speaker of the House, Virginia House of William E Copeland, Past President, Portsmouth Chapter Delegates NAACP Honorable Meyera E Obendorf Mayor, City of Virginia Beach Clarence V'Cufleel- Interim City Manager, City of Chc6apeake Honorable Owen R Pickett, US House of Representatives Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, Secretary of Natural 'William P@-uitt, Commissioner, Virginia Marine Resources Commission' Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia Colonel Robert H. Rea;don, Jr., District Engineer, US Army Corps of Honorable Mark L Earley, Virginia.State Senate Engineers Rear Ad"ral William J Ecker, Commander, 5th District 'Honorable Charles & Robb, United States Senate Coast Guard 'John-L Roper IV, President, South Tidewater Associatioh of Ship Honorable'jPaul D. Fraim, Mayor; City of Norfolk Repairers George C Garris, Jr., President, Hampton Roads Maritime Honorable Norman SisisAy, United States House of Representatives Association Albert E Viola; President, Tidewater Builders Association James J GlIdea, Planning Director, City of Portstnbuth Honorable Frank W Wagner, Virginia House of Delegates M. Elizabeth Gillelan, Chief, NOAN -.Chesapeake Bay Office -Honorable Stanley C_ Walker, President prd tempore, Senate of Virginia John A. Hornbeck, President, Hampton Roads Chamber of Honorable Milliam E Ward, Mayor, City of Chesapeake Commerce Honorable John Warner, United States Senate Honorable Jerrauld C Jones, Virginia House of Delegates Honorable,Gloria 0. Webb, Mayor, City of Portsmouth Captain William Klemm, Shipyard Commander, Norfolk Naval Dr. Harrison R Wilson, President, Norfolk State University Shipyard Dr. LD. Wright, Acting Dean and Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Dr.'James @@Xoch, President 'Old Dorninion University Science Prepared by the Elizabeth River Project's Watershed Action Team In Partnership with the Commonwealth of Virginia. Also funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant #NA47OZO287-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocea" and Coastal Resources Management, under the Coastal Zone Managernent Act of 1972, as, aniended.. A 6 - V-4 NO, C-Me views wtpressed herein are those of the authors and do not neceuw* reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.) Overview T his Watershed Action Plan completes a he Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, crucial planning phase for the Elizabeth TVA Secretary of Natural Resources, has River Project in carrying out its mission of a pledged her commitment to giving "every cleaner Elizabeth River, but by no means consideration" to implementation of the represents "the end of the road." The plan. The state provided almost $100,000 Elizabeth River Project was founded "to in direct and contracted support to develop N form apartnership among the communities the recommendations. The EPA!s and all who cam their living from the river, Chesapeake Bay Program has awarded to raise appreciation of its economic, more than $80,000 for the Elizabeth River ecological and recreational importance, and Project to implement the plan, including to restore the Elizabeth River system to the money for a wetlands restoration we will highest practical level of environmental carry out in partnership with the City of quality" (mission statement 1993). Norfolk. Achieving urban watershed Congress has authorized a $420,000 "The Elizabeth River restoration requires thousands of committed study of projects the US Army Corps of Project.. should people and organizations working patiently Engineers could implement related to the serve as a prototype over several decades to carry out hundreds plan (funding pending). The 1996 VA for other of initiatives. The goal of the Elizabeth General Assembly approved $250,000 for communifies trying to River Project is to see this long-term effort increased monitoring and $200,000 for find answers to to fruition. A wide spectrum of interests has removal of derelict vessels in the Elizabeth complexprvblenis and to build a been represented both on our Comparative River over the next two years. The consensus around Risk Committees, as they reached agreement passenger schooner, American Rove is solutions. on the river's problems in 1994, and on our starting Elizabeth River education for Watershed Action Team as it set school children. recommendations in 1996. Our committees Our fundamental challenge is to The Honomble Nonnan and intervening public conferences have set keep the momentum going. We look to you Sisisky, US Congress forth a promising road map for restoring as the essential ingredient for the success of environmental quality. die actions that follow. ow the Elizabeth River Project Join us in achieving Nproceeds to the next task: our Watershed Action bringing environmental restoration to Team's vision of "a r reality by initiating implementation of river that nourishes the Watershed Action Plan. and sustains a wide While the independent, non-profit variety of economic Elizabeth River Project does not have the and public uses, supports a healthy and resources or the authority to carry out large- _Z_ scale improvement projects directly, our diverse ecosystem Board of Directors is committed to serving and is actively and in a catalyst role to see that the responsibly managed by an educated recommendations of the Watershed Action citizenry and a Team are implemented by those with the most appropriate authority and capabilities. partnership of river QQ users." 0 The project has proven successful in this role already by virtue of its commitment to bringing all parties to the table to identify common interests. State of the River "In many respects, the history of our sewage treatment plant. Large challenges nation is intertwined with the history of the remain for the 300-square-mile watershed, Elizabeth River .... How economic however. development, which has had so much of a he most serious risks currently facing the struggle throughout the centuries to come to TElizabeth River were ranked in 1994 by anyfruition, and how the necessary military diverse committees of the Elizabeth River structure can be maintained, and at the same Project. These "Comparative Risk time the river maintained, is a tremendous Committees" agreed on four problems posing challenge. I commend you for undertaking a high risk to human health, quality of life and that challenge. " the ecosystem in the Elizabeth River - Former US Sen. William B. Spong watershed: Jr. of Portsmouth,, Elizabeth River Project 1) sediment contamination, Visions conference Oct. 22, 1993 2) loss of habitat and aquatic life, 3) "non-point source" pollution, T he Elizabeth River provides bountifully primarily stormwater runoff, and for Hampton Roads in economic terms. 4) "point-source pollution," She sets a magnificent scene for attractions primarily discharges from industrial facilities. such as Norfolk's new National Maritime In a 1995 technical assessment for this Center, Nauticus, and Harbor Park ballfield. Action Plan, URS Consultants identified Her channel waters bustle with the military stormwater runoff as responsible for as much fleets and foreign cargo vessels of an as 88 percent of heavy metals entering the expanding port. She hosts thousands of river, and as much as 99 percent of another recreational boaters on infamous river problem, the Intercoastal polycyclic aromatic Waterway and hydrocarbons (PAITs), hundreds of thousands carcinogens found in high "I know of no party on her shores levels in the Southern restorative ofheart, during Harborfest. Branch of the river. body, and soul At the same The Elizabeth River more effective time, the Elizabeth Project's Comparative against River remains one of the more seriously Risk Committees identified an overarching hopelessness than degraded urban rivers in the United States. concern for human health risks. The the restoration of Originally a broad, shallow estuary of the committees advised against near-shore the Earth. Chesapeake Bay, the river has been dredged swimming in the river, or working or wading to twice her normal depth and filled to two- in the mud of the Southern Branch, due to Barry Lopez thirds her normal width to accommodate contaminants. Bacterial counts am too high McKenzie River, three centuries of development. Toxics for consumption of shellfish directly from the Oregon accumulating in the river's muddy floor have river. The risk of cancer from ingestion of been correlated with health problems in fish, PCB-contaminated fish is significant and has including tumors, cataracts and other been calculated at I in 10,000, using limited abnormalities, and pose risks for human data from the Southern Branch. health as well. Aquatic life has a hard time Our committees have consistently finding habitat, with as much as 50 percent been concerned with environmental justice of tidal wetlands lost on the Elizabeth River issues as well. On the Elizabeth River, these since World War 11. go hand in hand with human health concerns. Some of the river's problems have Some population groups are more at risk than abated with the environmental others from eating the river's fish or shellfish, consciousness of the last decades. Industrial the committees noted, including those engaged discharges into the river are regulated and in recreational boating or subsistence fishing significantly cleaner. Municipal and pregnant women and nursing mothers. improvements include a state-of-the-art Histoly of the Plan ---- T his Watershed Action Plan is the result of planning process. Actions address not only he Hampton Roads community taking toxics, but also the "high risk" problems of responsibility for our own environmental sediment contamination, habitat loss, point- challenges, with timely government help. source and non-point source pollution. "I congratulate each The non-profit Elizabeth River Project A 120-member Watershed Action ofyouforyour was hatched in 1991 by four local citizens Team kicked off on April 27, 1995. Over the community spirit, and around a kitchen table. Their premise: This following year, the teani worked in four task have confidence that your energy and river's large problems will not be solved by forces: a Habitat & Living Resources Task concern for the government alone, but by a new level of Force, a Sediment Quality Task Force, a Elizabeth River community stewardship. In 1994, with Water Quality Task Force and a Toxics will produce tangible funding from the US EPA and the private VA Reduction Team. Members represented the results of which we Environmental Endowment, the Elizabeth spectrum of business, government, citizen and can all be proud. River Project steered 80 volunteers from all scientific concerns. These volunteers walks of life through a seven-month process developed hundreds of pages of discussion - The Honorable Becky of analysis and debate leading to agreement papers before achieving consensus Norton Dunlop, Secretary on the river's worst problems. Feb. 29/March 1, 1996. Consultants also of Natural Resources, Meanwhile, the tri-state Chesapeake provided background reports. Watershed Action Team Bay Program designated the Elizabeth River Actions were chosen based on three kick-off, April 27, 1995 as one of three toxic "Regions of Concern" 1-kcriteria: effectiveness, affordability and on the Bay. On Oct. 14, 1994, Virginia Gov. acceptability to the community. Each action George F. Allen signed a commitment to recommended was judged to be cffective in lower toxics in these regions of concern. reducing high-risk problems of the watershed. The State turned to the Elizabeth For each, it was thought reasonable that River Project for stakeholder funding could be found and benefits appeared recommendations. In March 1995, the to outweigh costs. Each was considered Elizabeth River Project entered a partnership acceptable enough to reach implementation, agreement with Secretary of Natural although acceptability was hardest to gauge. Resources Becky Norton Dunlop. State The Elizabeth River Project mailed 1,000 funding was provided for the Project to questionnaires on acceptability in whiter 1995 develop recommendations on toxics reduction and established a Leadership Review Board to as an integrated part of a larger Watershed obtain input from the highest levels of Action Plan. The comprehensive plan authority, influence and knowledge on river represents "Phase Two, Risk Management" of issues. The Leadership Board endorsed the the Elizabeth River Project's EPA-sponsored plan at a seminar on April 26, 1996. Critical Areas he Action Team identified the following The team recognizes these as key Tas "critical areas" deserving the most actions for the health of the river, although the "Astounding, resources at this time: team also expressed concern that too much miraculous! " Action I - Reduce sediment emphasis on a few priorities could weaken its Excellent. Modelfor contamination; integrated watershed approach. "Restoration is the nation. " Action 2 - Increase vegetated buffers, different from habitat creation, reclamation "My grandchildren wetlands acreage andforested areas; and rehabilitation -- it is a holistic process not (yet-to-be) will be Action 5 - Establish pollution achieved through the isolated manipulation of grateful. " prevention andlor sustainable landscaping individual elements," according to the National - Comments of the practices; Research Council (1992). Watershed Action Team, Action 6 - Reduce pollution from The Team strongly recommends that Concluding Retreat. stormwater runo implementation move forward with all 18 Feb. 29[Mar. 1, 1996 Action 14 - Establish an Elizabeth actions. All 18 met the test of the team's River monitoring program and data bank. criteria: affordable, acceptable and effective. 3 ACTION AGENDA Section I - Addressm'g past harms Meeting our obligations Goak To restore the health, aesthetics and diverse ecosystems of the Elizabeth River Oe A ction I duce sediment contamination in the Elizabeth River to levels non- R:oxic to humans and aquatic life, remediating the highest priority contaminated sites by 2010. Pollutants accumulating over authorization (funding pending) for Corps centuries in the river bottom have been linked study of the river; US Rep. Norman Sisisky, to tumors, cataracts and deformities in fish sponsor. Testing of "in situ" bioremediation and pose risks for human health as well. by the VA Center for Innovative Technology 1996-2010. Establish a relationship and the University of VA. 1997. Demonstrate between the Elizabeth River Project, the remediation of sediments in a small Army Corps of Engineers Elizabeth River waterway as part of a larger demonstration Basin Study and the EPA Superfitnd Plan for project. 1998. State should establish the Atlantic Wood site to: a) Identify areas Sediment Quality Guidelines to provide where sediments are the most contaminated consistent guidance on levels at which and select best alternatives to remediate them, sediments are considered contaminated. using EPA guidelines. b) Conduct a Rentediation costs vary. Dredging demonstration remediation at a highly alone: $6 to $8 per cubic yard if a confined contaminated site. c) Remediate the highest disposal facility is available (if not, costs priority contaminated sites by 2010. Pursue in escalate). Capping costs are comparable. on- conjunction with addressing upland sources of shore bioremediation: $50 to $200 per cubic contamination. Underway: Congressional yard; requires dredging & on-shore facility. Action 2 ncrease vegetated buffers, wetlands acreage and forested areas. The river has lost extensive plate fimd). Identify sites for the Vegetated vegetation -- as much as 50 percent of tidal Buffer Demonstration Project of VA Tech and wetlands between 1944 and 1977. Wetlands VA Coastal Resources Management. and other "vegetated buffers" provide habitat, Consider training volunteers for this program. trap sediments and filter pollutants. 1998. Complete a restoration priorities "It is a wonderful 1997- 2010: Pursue wetlands report. Develop percentage-based plan. restoration and conservation. To maximize measurable objectives. Meet these objectives effectiveness, affordability and acceptability: through local planning, enhanced stewardship RADM Robert Cole, Concentrate on areas where losses have been and critical land and easement acquisition. Commander, the greatest restore historical wetlands where Increase public awareness of the benefits of Norfolk Naval Base, possible. Focus on publicly held land where forested areas and increase public comments at possible, reserving purchase of private sites participation in tree planting. Establish five Leadership Seminar April 26,1996 and easements to critical areas. Focus on tree steward chapters per year with the Urban marginally developable real estate. Forestry Council. 2000. Develop contiguous Underway: Implement the Elizabeth "corridors" of habitat and large wetland areas River Project's Wetlands Restoration through a "river corridoe' program. Demonstration Project in Larchmont Costs: Average for creating I acre of ($5 1,000 approved by EPA and VA license salt marsh: $18,000; varies widely. 4 l mplement habitat enhancement programs at 25 percent of business Action 3 and government facilities in the watershed by the year 2005, and enhance backyard habitats. I love the All areas of the river's aquatic building bird houses for targeted species. beautiful water, ecosystem show evidence of stress, from life Similar programs have resulted in enthusiastic the fact that it k in the river bottom to birds and marnmals. employee participation and positive public right next Loss of habitat is a major stressor. recognition. Program will also advise on to the city, Underway: Encourage business and backyard habitat. and the government facilities to enhance habitat on Costs: Cost to the Elizabeth River aquatic life. unused, marginally developable property by Project of developing the service is about developing a "how to" resource service and $25,000 per year. Costs to businesses for Karen Amandolia, "green award" program. 'Me Elizabeth River implementing habitat are minimal, with Glenwood Elementary Project is developing this service, exploring donated materials often available. What I like best about the model of the Wildlife Habitat Council in the Elizabeth River. Earth Day, 1995 Silver Spring, MD. Goals are to identify -law M. and contact potential businesses; conduct seminars and el develop habitat through low-cost steps such as planting small plots of seed crops or inimize erosion along rapidly eroding shorelines by 20 10, also Action 4 Mrehabilitating existing hardened shorelines to use naturalized erosion measures wherever practical. The loss of fhnge marshes and other enhanced compliance with existing restrictions. development impacts have contributed to By 2000. Develop and institute a high erosion. Results include a loss of successful incentive program for managing valuable uplands as well as ecological erosion-prone shorelines. Explore damage. combinations of grants, cost-sharing and By 1998. Promote the use of natural preferential tax, loan and insurance policies shorelines to control erosion. Construct closely tied to existing regulatory and advisory demonstration projects promoting the programs. Consider legislation authorizing economic and ecological benefits of natural local governments to design, construct and shorelines. Pursue new technologies. Endorse maintain shoreline defense structures on a reinstatement of funding to VA Dept. of shoreline reach basis, through creation of Conservation and Recreation's Shoreline erosion abatement districts with limited Erosion and Advisory Service to offer no-cost bonding power. advice and site inspections to property By 2010: Achieve a goal of the total owners. Identify degraded marsh habitats and linear feet of more desirable sloped and erosion prone reaches and develop options to grassed shorelines exceeding the linear feet of minimize erosion. Explore measures to vertical shorelines. reduce erosion caused by boat wakes. Explore Costs: Average for creating I acre of the need for more no-wake zones and for salt marsh: $18,000; varies widely. 5 ACTION AGENDA Section 11 - Keeping new pollution out of the river Being good stewards Goal: To inspire individual and corporate responsibility and stewardship. Action 5 stablish pollution prevention and/or sustainable landscaping Epractices among 25 percent of residential, commercial and government land users in the watershed by the year 2005. Pollution prevention practices are The Elizabeth River Project will pursue these intended to halt pollution at the source, rather efforts in cooperation with VA DEQ, US EPA, than cleaning up after-the-fact. This approach Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Alliance is considered one of the most effective means for the Chesapeake Bay and other relevant available to reduce toxic releases into the authorities, along with developers, garden environment. Pollution prevention offers a shops, hardware stores, environmental "win-win" path that often saves money, consultants, landscapers, master gardeners and enhances safety and reduces liability. others willing to pool their expertise for Underway : 1) Develop an Elizabeth mutual gain. River Project resource service and Promote the following practices recognition program to increase pollution throughout the watershed: use ofnative and prevention practices among watershed other "beneficial" plants; integratedpest industrial and commercial facilities. Adapt management, water-wise landscaping, turf from existing prototypes and seek assistance alternatives; rain gardens; vegetated buffers; from die VA DEQ Office of Pollution andpervious surfaces. Prevention, the Hampton Roads Sanitation Underway: HB863/SB 179 of the District and locality stormwdter management 1996 General Assembly allows localities to divisions. Develop a resource pool of local give tax incentives for improvements using expertise. Establish a clearinghouse for pervious materials. "It shines in specific pollution prevention techniques Select a neighborhood or the sun. categorized by land uses. Provide Internet neighborhoods for an awareness campaign access through Elizabeth River Project promoting such practices and pursuing existing Home Page - www..infl.net/-erp. demonstration projects. Develop Megan Burns, 2) Conduct a campaign to contact 11crivironmental contracts". for waterfront Lynnhaven Elementary, potential beneficiaries, starting with those landowners. Conduct "before," "during" and What I like best about the Elizabeth River. most likely to benefit. Assist interested "after" surveys of awareness. Use results to Earth Day, 1995 parties with identifying techniques applicable promote such activities watershed-wide. to their land use and with plarming Cost of resource service: $80,000 implementation strategies. Examples of amiually. Costs to beneficiaries: varies widely. businesses that may benefit include gas stations and motor vehicle maintenance facilities. 3) Present an "award" to participating parties and provide public recognition. Underway: Develop a resource service and "green award" program targeted to assisting watershed residents with adopting sustainable landscaping and pollution prevention practices. Also promote increased 6 toxics disposal opportunities for residents. ACTION AGENDA WN *Jaime,, m. F, !a, Bill Tiernan copyright 1996 educe pollution from stormwater runoff to the maximum practical Action 6 JLXextent. As much as 90 percent of new pollution Promote regional land use planning and entering the Elizabeth River today arrives in practices to reduce impervious surfaces, such runoff from parking lots, lawns and other as bike and walking paths to activity centers, industrial and residential surfaces. An aging zoning to allow centralized communities, system of stormwater drains rushes a toxic soup shared parking for compatible businesses, of oils, fertilizers, pesticides and metals directly cluster developments and alternative surfaces into the river. including pervious paving systems. e) 1996-2000: Work with the Cities of Promote regional adoption of innovative, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake and Virginia cost-effective stormwater pollution control Beach to provide the public support and the techniques to retrofit outmoded stormwater public-private resources necessary to: a) systems in developed areas. f) As public Increase public support for city stormwater support increases, work with Cities to pollution reduction programs and for the active consider ambitious measurable objectives for use of city resources to implement pollution replacing significant amounts of outmoded management. b) Achieve full, effective city stormwater systems. Pursue opportunities implementation of stormwater pollution to assist by researching promising retrofit controls already in place or proposed by the techniques for the Elizabeth and pursuing cities, recognizing that intended improvements demonstration projects. Explore public- are likely to remain only partially realized private funding. Promote a voluntary program without greater public support. Promote fidl offering incentives to facilities capturing and implementation of city permits for stormwater treating their first flush of stormwater. management. c) Promote uniform standards for Costs: Ulta-urban BMPs, $20,000 for implementation of Best Management Practices Storniceptor units to $50,000 for a sand filter for new development and re-development. d) structure. Other costs vary. 7 Shoreline and Tidal Marsh Changes Elizabeth River Watershed 1944 -1977 Chesapeake Bay N 1944 Shoreline N 1977 Shoreline 1944 Tidal Marshes 04 1977 Tidal Marshes WiHoughby Spit Lafayette River NORFOLK f C@raney @Island Eastern Branch Western Branch PORTSMOUTH Paradise Creek VIRGINIA BEACH CHESAPEAKE Southern Branch -a cvm C@ftrftwca&" AL NW-0--t-dvain kilometers 0- 1 2 3 4 Source: USGS Topographic Map, 1944,1977. ACTION AGENDA ol A ction 7 dentify and correct inadequate sanitary collection systems, for the 1purpose of reducing human health risks and ecological risks from bacterial contamination in the Elizabeth River. Unsanitary conditions related to River in 1994. Develop education and human and animal sewage contribute to the incentive components and funding sources. condemnation of shellfish beds in the 2) Identify and address other sewage Elizabeth River. Such conditions pose risks discharge problems. to human health. 3) Build public support for the 1996-2000. 1) Include boaters and municipalities in their development of marinas in a diverse task force, possibly strategies and incentives for home and sponsored by the VA Dept. of Health, to business owners to repair leaks in develop an effective program for increasing "lateral"sewage lines running from a house the use of sewage pump-out facilities by or business to a curb. These lines are recreational boaters. Hampton Roads has generally the responsibility of the property nearly 25,000 registered recreational boats; owner and pose a missing link in efforts to use of pump-outs appears limited. Examine maintain adequate human sewage collection. other successful programs including "Pump Costs: A portable pump-out program Don't Dump" program of the State of for recreational boaters on the Lynnhaven Maryland and a shore-based, no-charge cost about $45,000. Repair of lateral sewage pump-out program piloted on the Lynnhaven lines averages about $100 per linear foot. Action 8 Deduce TBT to non-toxic levels in the Elizabeth River waters and JAsediment, while enhancing the opportunity for continued competiveness of Virginia's shipping, shipbuilding and other related businesses. Tributyltin (TBT) is a pesticide 3) Maintain Virginia's progress used in antifoulant paints to protect boat toward reducing the sources of TBT hulls from barnacles and algae. TBT contamination by continuing current TBT compounds are highly regulations. toxic to aquatic 4) Continue to conduct study of life and are the nature of the capable of TBT problem causing at the local adverse level if biological 4 effects at funding for extremely low such studies is levels. found. Further study 1996: could provide better 1) Initiate aggressive action understanding of the actual levels of seeking the establishment of a national ban release from shipyards and newly painted on the use of TBT paints on all watergoing hulls and subsequent impacts on water vessels. quality. 2) Support the establishment of an Costs: Cost of monitoring the international ban on die use of TBT paints effect of a single ship-painting event could on all vessels. be $70,000 to $100,000. 10 ACTION AGENDA P romote mass transit and alternate transportation, based on a Action 9 recognition of automotive usage as a major source of pollution in the Elizabeth River. Cars and trucks are a major source b) Alert Elizabeth River Project of pollution in the Elizabeth River through members and leadership of opportunities to air emissions and through metals and oils provide support for specific initiatives; washed off the roads with the rain. c) Promote understanding of the link 1996. Form a mass transit and between cars and trucks and water quality, alternate transportation team of the exploring the possibility of a speakers bureau Elizabeth River Project to: to address this issue; and a) Identify ways to increase support d) Explore whether any direct for and effectiveness of organizations initiatives, such as a biking path, are within already pursuing mass transit; the scope of the Elizabeth River Project. 6, E nhance compliance with existing regulations. Action 10 Regulations exist which, effectively to enhancing regulatory compliance at the implemented, would significantly improve local level. Issues the panel might address: the Elizabeth River. Compliance is To what degree is the implementation of Excellent overall.. diminished by a lack of regulatory resources, existing regulations producing the intended Congratulations a lack of public education and incentives results? To what degree is compliance to all!" and inconsistent or illogical implementation enhanced by the use of regulations that are practices. understandable and consistently applied? Will Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay 1996-2000: Support adequate What conflicts between regulations, if any, Foundation, staffing and other resources needed to exist? Is there effective management of corments implement existing regulations in a manner compliance records? What resource levels on the First Draft of the effective for reducing pollutants in the are needed? Are current education and Watershed Action Plan watershed. Relevant regulations include but incentive methods sufficient? are not limited to the Chesapeake Bay Costs: 'Me estimated cost for this Preservation Act, Erosion and Sediment recommendation was based on each city Control Regulations and VA Pollutant adding one additional staff person and the Discharge Regulations. Tidewater regional DEQ office adding two The Elizabeth River Project should additional staff for enhancing compliance. explore interest among business, citizen and The total cost is estimated at $250,000 to government concerns for a compliance study $300,000 per year. group to develop a comprehensive approach ACTION AGENDA Section III - Increasing use and enjoyment of the Elizabeth Realizing the full potential of the resource Goak To raise appreciation of the river @ economic, ecological and recreational values. nhance marketability of Hampton Roads through achieving a cleaner Action H Environment, working with localities and the Chamber of Commerce's Plan 2007. "Hampton Roads Pollution slows the economic vitality greater environmental quality. c) EPA is one of the most of a region, impacting marketing, recreation Sustainable Development Challenge Grants, successfulshipping and quality of life. providing funding for projects that leverage ports in the world. 1996-2000: The Elizabeth River private investment in environmental efforts It has been blessed Project should work with the State, Cities and and those that link environmental protection with the greatest of private partners to explore federally funded with sustainable development and natural resources opportunities for enhancing economic vitality revitalization. in its port, and the by achieving a cleaner Elizabeth River. Also encourage local tourism maritime community has Explore initiatives including: a) EPA bureaus, economic development departments taken full Brownfields Economic Redevelopment and the Chamber of Commerce to become ad@antuge of this Initiative, providing up to $200,000 for partners in river cleanup efforts out of resouAce, improving the economic viability of recognition for the value that clean rivers play constantly growing abandoned, idled or underused sites by in a community's marketability to tourists and and diversifying.. cleaning them up. b) EPA Project XL businesses concerned about quality of life. - Hampton Roads Communities, providing flexibility for Cost: Matching local and/or private Maritime Assoc. communities to implement community- funding may be required for federal Annual Repo:rt 1996 designed and directed strategies to achieve programs. Cost-benefit should be high. ncrease public access to the Elizabeth River for the purpose of A ction 12 lincreasing appreciation of the river and support for restoration. A lack of positive river experiences publicize existing access sites, providing a contributes to a lack of concern for the map and lists of facilities available. Use Elizabeth River. Increasing recreational volunteers to contact government officials. access is one way to increase appreciation of Have results printed and distributed the river. throughout the area, modeling the effort after Underway: Initiate boat trips to the Chesapeake Bay Program's Bay Area expose children to the beauty, history, Access Plan (1990). Support the expansion of recreational, economic and ecological values existing public access opportunities, of the river. Working with the Elizabeth River particularly those such as Virginia Beach's Project, the passenger schooner American . Elizabeth River Nature and Canoe Trail that Rover begins Elizabeth River education for at the same time preserve habitat. Develop students in Spring 1996. additional access to the river on sites 1996-1997. Elizabeth River Project identified by previous studies including the should obtain a small grant to identify and Bay Program Public Access Plans. 12 ACTION AGENDA R move abandoned vessels and pilings, where possible also conserving Action 13 @r replacing habitat. Abandoned vessels are unsightly, deteriorated structures in the Elizabeth River. contribute to negative attitudes about the The Marine Resources Commission has river, can leak pollution and may be already mapped the location of derelict navigation hazards. The Western Branch pilings, piers and vessels in the river. These alone has at least 44 abandoned vessels and objects leach oil and other hazardous almost 500 abandoned pilings. substances. At times, however, abandoned Undenvay: The 1996 General vessels do provide scarce habitat. Efforts Assembly adopted a state budget amendment should be made to replace any habitat lost. allocating $ 100,000 a year for 1996 and 1997 Special thanks to the Hon. Stanley C. Walker, to the VA Marine Resources Commission for VA Senate, early patron of the budget removal of abandoned vessels and other amendment. ".3 2", IL Z V. 757, 7, -Bill Tiernan copyright 1996 13 ACTION AGENDA Section IV - Increasing our knowledge of the Elizabeth River Making more informed decisions Goal: Develop a state-of-the-art Watershed Action Plan that is effective... affordable... and acceptable. stablish and maintain an Elizabeth River monitoring program and Action 14 Edata bank to provide the scientific foundation for protecting, restoring and sustaining living resources and human health in the Elizabeth River watershed. Monitoring provides the only sound was requested to enhance toxics monitoring basis for guiding effective management of the capabilities of DEQ as one part of a river, including implementation of actions in comprehensive monitoring and data this plan. Without a consistent way to collection program, also pooling other local measure river conditions over time, it is and private resources. During the first year, unknown whether management efforts are scientific, citizen, business, academic and appropriate and we may be unable to tell if government interests should be brought our proposed actions make any difference. together for facilitated discussions of a) Underway: At the request of the achieving an effective monitoring program; Elizabeth River Project, the 1996 General b) resources to be pooled from the public and Assembly adopted a state budget amendment private sector. A centralized data bank should providing $250,000 over two years to be established and improved DEQ monitoring enhance toxics monitoring capabilities of the begun. VA Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. In the second year, the Speaker Thomas Moss of the House and monitoring program should provide data for State Sen. Stanley C. Walker were early an annual State of the River report to be patrons of the bill. The budget amendment presented to the public. etermine the ecological effects of Craney Island operations on the Action 15 DElizabeth River, with the purpose of reaching consensus among interested parties about best management practices and remediation needs. Craney Island is a 2,500-acre 1998-99: Complete data collection confined site operated at the confluence of the and analysis, develop any recommendations Elizabeth and James Rivers for the disposal of for possible improvements, and prepare report dredged material. Questions have been raised for distribution to concerned parties. about the possible escape of contamination Cost: Cannot be accurately estimated from these materials, although no studies have prior to completing the study design. Cost of identified any major pollution problems. preliminary work needed to design a study, 1997. Design a comprehensive, including a review of existing literature, and a independent, technologically sound study to preliminary report would cost $15,000 to generate new data and provide die basis for $20,000. Cost would be justified by factors recommending possible improvements. including the significance of Craney Island as Stakeholders and beneficiaries should be one of the world's largest confined dredged involved in planning and financing the study. material placement areas and the need to Review existing pertinent literature, rules, educate the public about the ecological effects regulations and permits; design the study, of Craney Island operations (positive or 14 obtain financial support, organize study team. negative). ACTION AGENDA D evelop and implement a "load allocation approach" as a voluntary Action 16 tool for making more informed,, more cost-effective decisions on how to manage the Elizabeth River. Load allocations improve the ability ("load capacity"). 4) Suggest "load" levels to to understand and predict pollution impacts be allocated among point and non-point on the watershed, providing checks and sources consistent with target reductions. balances to assure that resources are spent on 'Ibis step can create "pollutant trading "The care the greatest environmental needs. opportunities" which can encourage more ofrivers is 1996-2000 - 1) With VA DEQ as the cost-effective environmental results ("die not a question lead agency, prepare a "load" inventory biggest bang for the buck"). 5) Suggest of rivers, documenting all point and non-point source appropriate allocations and management but of the pollution input into the river. 2) Calculate the strategies based on what we have learned. hunian heart. " "load capacity" of the river, or the amount of NOTE: This reduction action is not intended Tanaka Show pollutants the river can assimilate without to be used in a regulatory context. adverse impacts to environmental quality. An Costs: Funding is envisioned to be essential step, modeling the river's flow, is obtained from grants. Funding may also be near completion at Old Dominion University. obtained from stakeholders if they feel that 3) Prepare "load allocation reduction targets." the process will benefit them by reducing Detennine the amount of pollution which their costs for toxics reduction actions. Total must be removed in order not to exceed the costs could range as high as $2 million. river's ability to assimilate the pollutant 1@ W_:7@ 01, 1 evelop a nutrients task force to establish Elizabeth River nutrient A ction 17 Dgoals and basis for goals, and to recommend control measures needed to achieve goals. Excess nutrients are well-recognized Recommend further studies where existing as a serious pollution problem of the data is insufficient to establish nutrient goals. Chesapeake Bay and its rivers. At the same 2000 - Develop a comprehensive time, high uncertainty exists regarding water quality model for the river to evaluate appropriate nutrient reduction goals and nutrient flux, determine the dominant sources controls for the Elizabeth. and explore the effectiveness of different Underway - A nutrients task force control measures. Recommend those nutrient has b con formed, including liaison control measures needed to achieve goals. representation on the Hampton Roads Follow through to assure that the Tributary Strategies work group of the recommended controls are implemented. Hampton Roads Planning District Cost of task force: Low unless Commission. Establish nutrient goals and additional technical research is needed basis for goals. Evaluate existing data. beyond the work of the strategies project. 15 ACTION AGENDA Section V - Creating an active partnership to manage & maintain a healthy river Working together Goal: To forge partnerships between citizens, industry, scientists and government, while balancing competing uses. Action 18 Build strong partnerships between the Elizabeth River Project and all public and private authorities relevant to this plan, for the purposes of ensuring public input and support; achieving environmental equity, and promoting speedy, effective implementation and enhanced regional watershed planning. 1996 - Establish on-going leadership environmental justice-related groups; for the Action Plan at the highest levels of c) governments and agencies, including the authority, and establish strong working-level Commonwealth of Virginia; the Cities of relationships, in each of these areas: Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake and a) businesses and their trade organizations; Virginia Beach; the Hampton Roads Planning b) residents and their civic groups; educational District Commission, the Hampton Roads and scientific institutions; recreational Sanitation District, EPA, US Congress, Army organizations, environmental and Corps of Engineers, Navy and Coast Guard. Your Role in Implementation We have believed from the start that The Elizabeth River Project invites you to our community should decide for itself the be a part of bringing this caring vision of kind of river it wants. Volunteers from all a cleaner river to fruition. A number of walks of life have worked side by side for actions are already underway, thanks to the nearly three years to give us a plan credibility and can-do spirit of those representing the great breadth of interests in involved to date. Other actions depend on the Elizabeth River watershed. We believe you. they have prepared a rare gift for our Let us. know how you would like to community: an action plan that is meaningful help with the Elizabeth River Restoration. and ambitious, yet practical and inclusive. " America is a great story, and there is a river on every page of it." Opportunities to Participate Implementation Team Action Committees (pursuing each action) Public Involvement Committee (building public support) Technical Review Committee (making actions effective) Ways & Means Committee (finding funding for actions) Charter Memberships-$25 Individual, $50 Supporting, $100 Sustaining; 175 Organization 16 Elizabeth River Project 109 E Main St., Suite 305 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 804-625-3648 fax 804 625-4423 Acknowledgments 9,9pecial Thanks'to Discussion Paper Authors 7he following, Watershed Action Team. memberY developed discussion papers in support of this plan: Piada Bailey William Copeland William Hunley Dr. Morris Roberts Chenyl Barnett Cheryl Copper Nancy1bison Eileen Rowan June Barrett-McDaniels James Daman Leta Mitchell David Sump Lisa Billow Kenneth Dierks Deborah Mosher Dr. Lewis "Jay"Taylor John-Blandin Pam Ferguson MikeNickelsburg Susan Taylor Hansen Keith Carmady Chris Fischer -James Nixon C.D. "Carl" Thomas John Carlock Dr. Carl Fisher Randy, Owen Claude Thompson Kim Coble Thomas Friberg Marina Phillips Mollie Wolcott Linda Cole Mike Host Walter. Priest Ros's Worsham Consultants Action Teani Event Sponsors URS Consultants, Inc. Chesapeake Bay Foundation Lamont Curtis City of Norfolk Michael. Barbachem J.H. Miles & Co.- Shelly Frie Langley & McDonald Rebecca Savage, Lewis J. Taylor & Assoc. John Noles Norfolk Southern Corporation Hatcher-Sayre, Inc.@- John Hanscom URS-Consultants Center for Watershed Protection - Tom Schueler US Environmental Protection Agency Facilitators - Elizabeth Waters and Jan Eliassen -VA Environmental, Endowment VA.Department of Environmental Quality Special Assistance VS ERA Project Officer - R@dges Ankrah VA DEQ Project Manager - Eileen Rowan Elizabeth River Project Board of Directors Elizabeth River Project staff President - Ray E. Moses, RADM (NOAA Ret.) Vice-President - br J Frank Sellew, Deputy Superintendent, Norfolk Marjorie A@. Mayfield, Executive Director Public Schools Pamela Boatwright, Admin. Assistant Treasurer -.Katherine Cross, Attomey,, Cooper, Spohg, & Davis Secretary - Elizabeth A. Brichter, Junior.Lcague of NorfolkNA Beach. Thomas L. Ackiss,.Vice-President, Lyon Shipyard, Inc. Special Thanks for Artwork Sharon Q. Adains, Executive Director, VA Beach SPCA Photography -. Courtesy Bill Tiernan, -Cherryl Barnett, Director of Environmental Programs, Naval Base copyright 1996. June Barrett-McDaniels, Engineer, Aquarius Engineering Map - Courtesy Katherine Hopkins, Keith Cannady, Environmental Engineer-, City of Norfolk - Robert K. Dean, Chairman, Clean the Bay Day, Inc.; VA Beach City - VA Institute of Marine Science Council Member Illustrations - Copyright 1984-Alice Jane D.r Carl Fisher (NOAA Ret.) Lippson. Marilee Hawkins, Director of Environmental Services, City of Portsmouth Mike Kensler, Hampton Roads Assoc., Chesapeake Bay Foundation Richard H. Love, President', TI Associates Grassrools Support Dr.Venita Newby-Owens, Health Director, VA Dept. of Health '.Om t JSchueler'_ 1996 Charter Membersh' Walter Priest, Wetlands Scientist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 'P John Van Name, Manager of Air & Water Compliance, Naval Amphib of the Elizabeth River Project Base - Little Creek Actions are the result of conserisus decisions based on thousands of hours of research and debate by: The Watershed Action Team The Elizabeth River Project's Watershed Action Team envisions a river that: - Nourishes and sustains a wide variety of economic and public uses, -Supports a healthy and diverse ecosystem, and is - Actively and responsibly managed by an educated citizenry and a partnership of river users. Vision statement, June 12, 1995 President of the Board - Ray E Moses ( RADM NOAA Ret.) Oversight & Public Involvement Chairperson - Susan Cofer Integration Team - Mike Barbacheau, Keith Cannady, Dr. Carl Fisher, Marjorie Mayfield & David Sump Human Health Representative - Dr. Venita Newby-Owens Ways & Means Chairman - John Van Name Habitat & Living Resources Task Force Co-Chair- Keith Cannady, City of Norfolk Co-Chair- Marilee Hawkins, City of Portsmouth Dutch Anderson, Shea Terrace Civic League Gall Bradshaw, City of Chesapeake Dr. George Brown, Norfolk State University Dr. Robert Croonenberghs, VA Dept Health Phillip Davey, Davey Assoc. Kenneth A. Dierks, Langley & McDonald Commander John Doswell, US Navy Tom Eaton, Portsmouth Parks & Recreation Madalyn Grimes, Port Norfolk Civic League Nancy Ibisom, DCR R. Harold Jones, US Army Corps of Engineers Michael Kensler, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Harold Marshall, Old Dominion University Debora Mosher, Cox High School Michael Nickelsburg, Tidewater Comm. College Mark Perreault, Norfolk Southern Walter Priest, VA Institute of Marine Science Josh Priest, US Navy Gray Puryear, Cape Henry Audubon Society Lee Rosenberg, City of Norfolk Carlene Smith, Park View Civic League Fred Stemple, Tidewater Community College James Wilson, Norfolk Clean Community Mollie Wolcott, VA Port Authority Sediment Quality Task Force Co-Chair - John Blandin, Geologist Co-Chair - Dr. Carl Fisher, NOAA (Retired) DR. Raymond Alden III, ODU Applied Marine Lab Diana Balley, US Army Corps of Engineers Dr. David Baaco, Old Dominion University William Copeland, NAACP Dr. Daniel Dauer, Old Dominion University Roger Everton, VA Dept of Environmental Quality Thomas Friberg, Us Army Corps of Engineers Hank Ghittino, R.E. Wright Assoc. Susan Taylor Hansen, Cooper, Spong & Davis Robert Harrell, Center for Innovative Technology Woody Holton, Waterways Surveys & Engineering William Hull, Hampton Roads Maritime Assoc. E.L. Lash, River Shores Civic League Gregory Magnus, VA's Environment Nancy Merhige, Naval Amphib Base-LC James Nixon, Portsmouth Community Health Randal Owen, VA Marine Resource Comm. Dr. Morris Roberts, VA Institute of Marine Science Dr. Lewis J. Taylor, Lewis Taylor & Assoc. Claude Thompson, Consultant Dudley Ware, Norfolk Dredging Ross Worsham, Atlantic Wood Industries Toxics Reduction Team Co-Chair- James Herndon, The Herndon Group Co-Chair- Dr. J. Frank Sellew, Norfolk Public Schools Dr. Robert Ake, Cape Henry Audubon Society Guy Aydlett, Hampton Roads Sanitation District Mike Barbachem, URS Consultants June Barrett-McDaniels, Aquarius Engineering Tom Beacham, Norshipco Dr. George Brown, Norfolk State University Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Frank Daniel, VA Dept. of Enviromental Quality Paul Dickson, Norfolk Southern Thomas Friberg, US Army Corps of Engineers Rick Goldbach, Metro Machine Dr. Robert Hale, VA Institute of Marine Science Mike Host, Norfolk Naval Shipyard Will Jones, City of Portsmouth John Keifer, City of Norfolk Michael Kensler, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Sid Kitterman, City of Portsmouth Dr. Susan B Lingenfelser, US Fish & Wildlife Tyla Matteson, Sierra Club Jack Miles, J.H. Miles & Co. Sandi Olek, City of Portsmouth Marina Phillips, Kaufman & Canoles James Pletl, Hampton Roads Sanitation District Dr. Morris Roberts, VA Institute Marine Science Ken Roller, VA Power Gary Schafran, Old Dominion University Craig Seltzer, US Army Corps of Engineers Louis Speas, Naval Facilities Engineering Comm. Dr. Valerie Stallings, Norfolk Health Dept. Diana Starkey, Norfolk Convention & Visitors Thomas Stokes, Stokes Enviromental C.D. Thomas, VA Dept of Enviromental Quality Claude Thompson, Consultant Bernadette Woodhouse, Hoescht Celannese Steven C. Wright, City of Chesapeake Stephen Zylstra, US Fish & Wildlife Serive Water Quality Task Force Co-Chair - Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Co-Chair - David Sump, Crenshaw, Ware & Martin Lt. Delano Adams, US Coast Guard Dr. Larry Atkinson, Ctr Coastal Physical Ocean Richard Ayers, VA Dept Enviromental Quality Cherryl Barnett, Naval Base June Barrett-McDaniels, Aquarius Engineering Joanne Berkley, Baycare Lisa Billow, HSMM Environmental Group John Carlock, Hampton Roads Planning District Janet Causey, Hampton Roads Planning District Susan Cofer, Educator Linda Cole, Norfolk Naval Shipyard Cheryl Copper, City of Hampton James Daman, City of Norfolk Chris Fischer, Tarmac John Hanscom, Hatcher-Sayre William Hunley, Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist Dr. Albert Y. Kuo, VA Institute Marine Science Michelle Long, Texaco Lubricants Jack Miles, J.H. Miles & Co. Lets Mitchell, Environmental Health Specialist Derek Speetles, Texaco Lubricants C.D. Thomas, VA Dept of Environmental Quality Van White, Huntsman Chemical The Elizabeth River Project 109 E. Main St., Suite 305 Norfolk, Virginia 23510 804-625-3648 fax 804 625-4435 PRINTED ON RECYLED PAPER