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


                                                                                            FINAL PRODUCT           FY'94 Task 27
                                                                                            Elizabeth River     Draft Wetershed Action Plop












                                                                                                                                                              4








                                                                                                                               Z





                                                                                                             gor
                                                                      gig,











                                                                                  M,



                                                       Elizabeth River
                                                    estor                            ion


                                                     LEADERSHH) REVIEW DRAFT



                                                                Miabeth River Project







                                                    Elizabeth River 
                                                                                                                                                                        Ilk
                                                      Restoraation

                                               A Watershed Action Plan
                                            to Restore the Elizabeth River

                                                Leadership Review Draft
                                                     April 26, 1996

                                                Leadership Review Board

       William Baker, President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation                           Dr. James V Koch, President, Old Dominion University
       Dr. Donald F. Boesch, President, Alliance for the Chesapeake                  Linda R. Kolodziej, President, Virginia Audubon Council
                  Bay
                                                                                     Dr. Alan P Krasnoff, Chairman, Hampton Roads Planning District
       James R Borberg, General Manager, Hampton Roads                                         Commission
                  Sanitation District                                                William Matuszeski, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program
       Admiral Robert S. Cole, Commander, Norfolk Naval Base                         Honorable Thomas 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 Cuffee, Interim City Manager, City of Chesapeake                   Honorable Owen B. Pickett, US House of Representatives
       Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, Secretary of Natural                           William Pruitt, Commissioner, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
                  Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia                                Colonel Robert H. Reardon. Jr., District Engineer, US Army Corps of
       Honorable Mark L. Earley, Virginia State Senate                                        Engineers
       Rear Admiral William I Ecker, Commander, 5th District                         Honorable Charles S. Robb, United States Senate
                  Coast Guard                                                        John L Roper III, President, South Tidewater Association of Ship
       Honorable Paul D. Fraim, Mayor, City of Norfolk                                         Repairers
       George C Garris, Jr., President, Hampton Roads Maritime                       Honorable Norman Sisisky, United States House of Representatives
                  Association                                                        Honorable Frank W Wagner, Virginia House of Delegates
       James J. Gildea, Planning Director, City of Portsmouth                        Honorable Stanley C Walker, President pro tempore, Senate of Virginia
       M. Elizabeth Gillelan, Chief, NOAA - Chesapeake Bay Office                    Honorable John Warner, United States Senate
       John A. Hornbeck, President, Hampton Roads Chamber of                         Honorable Gloria 0. Webb, Mayor, City of Portsmouth
                            Commerce                                                 Dr. Harrison B Wilson, President, Norfolk State University
       Honorable Jerrauld C Jones, Virginia House of Delegates                       Dr. L.D. Wright, Acting Dean and Director, Virginia Institute.of Marine
                                                                                                          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 by the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resources Management Program
                through grant #NA47OZ0287-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management,
                                      under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended  


              The views express herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies




























































                                                       
                        






                                                                                      Elizabeth River Restoration












                           nble of contents



                                    Preface                                                                                       3
                                             "What the Elizabeth has given the nation"
                                             Excerpted remarks by former U.S. Senator William B. Spong, Jr.
                                    Introduction                                                                                  9
                                    Action agenda

                                             Section 1: Addressing past harms
                                             Meeting our obligations
                                                  Action 1 - Reduce sediment contamination...                                     16
                                                  Action 2 - Increase vegetated buffer areas, wetlands acreage and                20
                                                      forested areas...
           to                                     Action 3 - Implement habitat enhancement programs...                            27
                                                  Action 4- Reduce shoreline erosion...                                           28


                                             Section 2* Keeping new pollution out of the river
                                             Being good stewards
                                                  Action 5- Establish pollution prevention and/or sustainable                     31
                                                      landscaping practices...
                                                  Action 6- Reduce pollution from stormwater runoff..                             35
                                                  Action 7 - Identify and correct inadequate sanitary collection systems...       42
                                                  Action 8 - Reduce TBT to non-toxic levels...                                    46
                                                  Action 9 - Promote mass transit  ...                                            47
                                                  Action 10 - Enhance compliance    ...                                           49

                                             Section 3: Increasing use and enjoyment of the Elizabeth River
                                             Realizing the full potential of the resource
                                                  Action 11 - Enhance marketability of Hampton Roads...                           52
                                                  Action 12 - Increase public access...                                           54
                                                  Action 13 - Remove abandoned vessels...                                         56







                                                                              Elizabeth Riycr Restorati n


                                     SectionA; Increasing our knowledge about the Elizabeth River
                                     Making more informed decisions
                                         Action 14 - Establish a monitoring program and data bank     ...               58
                                         Action 15 - Determine ecological effects of Craney Island   ...                62
                                         Action 16 - Develop and implement a "load allocation approach"...              63
                                         Action 17 - Develop a nutrients task force...                                  65


                                     Section-51* Creating an active partnership to manage
                                              & maintain a healthy river
                                     Working together
                                         Action 18 - Build strong partnerships...                                       68


                            Origins of the Watershed Action Plan                                                        71
                            Ecological health of the Elizabeth River                                                    76
                                     URS Consultants
                            Sources of toxics: A comparison of point source                                             87
                                     and stormwater input
                                     UPS Consultants
                            Bibliography                                                                                94
                                     Reports developed in conjunction with this plan
                            Tables & maps
                                     Elizabeth River Watershed                                                          15
                                     Elizabeth River Wetland Habitat Loss - Lafayette River                             25
                                     Elizabeth River Wetland Habitat Loss - Southern Branch                             26
                                     BMP Cost Estimates                                                                 40
                                     Existing Portsmouth Lakes                                                          41
                                     Comparison of the Waterbodies Within the Elizabeth River Watershed                 44
                                     Fish and Wildlife Contaminant Pathology                                            85
                                     Rare, Protected or Endangered Species                                              86
                                     Total Metals Loadings (By River Segment)                                           90
                                     Total PAH Loadings (By River Segment)                                              91
                                     Total Metals Loadings (By Permitted Facilities)                                    92
                                     Total PAH Loadings (By Permitted Facilities)                                       93

                            Glossary                                                                                    97
                            References                                                                                  102








                                                                               Elizabeth River Restoration                    3















                       Preface




                                                                             "It's easy to observe that in many respects,
                                                                                                  the history of our nation
                                                                                                              is intertwined
                                                                                with the history of the Elizabeth River. "

                                                                                                           Former US Senator
                                                                                                        William B. Spong Jr.,
                                                                                                                    Portsmouth



                                                                       What the Elizabeth has given the nation

                                                 Excerpted remarks byfortner US Senator Milialn B. Spong Jr. at tile
                                         Elizabeth River Project conference, "Elizabeth River Visions, " Oct. 22, 1993, Norfolk
                                         PVaterside Marriott. A Portsinouth attorney, Spong isfonner dean of the Marshall
                                         Wythe School ofLmv at the College of Williain and Mary andfonner president of Old
                                         Doininion University.


                                                 In September of 1608, scarcely 18 months after Jamestown had been
                                         settled, John Smith and 12 sailors in a long boat crossed Hampton Roads and
                                         entered what we know today as the Elizabeth River. They went six or seven miles,
                                         we are told, and they noticed two things of some significance. One, they saw
                                         traces of previous habitation, but along this trip they saw no Indians. Secondly,
                                         they witnessed the large fir and pine trees on the banks of the Elizabeth.
                                                 Some time later, we have the first record of someone seeking use of the
                                         Elizabeth River, when a man named John Wood petitioned a London company for
                                         land to build a shipyard on the banks of the Elizabeth River. The sarne year, 1620
                                         -- about the time the pilgrims were settling Plymouth Rock -- William Tucker









                                                                                                      --I&-
                                                                Elizabeth Riyer Rc9oration                     4


                         petitioned for several acres of land at Sewell's Point, now the site of the Norfolk
                         Naval Base.
                                  A site for Norfolk on the Elizabeth River was purchased and laid out as a
                         town in 1687. On the other side of the Elizabeth, a man named William Carver
                         had petitioned and patented for the land there on which now stands Portsmouth.
                         Carver was not very smart, politically, and joined Bacon's Rebellion, which failed.
                         He was rewarded for his efforts by being hung in the Chesapeake Bay.
                                  His land was given to a man named Colonel William Crawford in 1716,
                         who laid out Portsmouth as a town. The first settlers in the two towns had come
                         across the James River and Hampton Roads to settle in what became Princess
                         Anne and Norfolk counties. Moving into the towns as shipping, shipbuilding, and
                         commerce developed, three quarters of the town lots in Norfolk and Portsmouth
                         were occupied by those employed in some type of maritime endeavor. The (House
                         of) Burgesses established Elizabeth River Parish and the site of its first church
                         was near the present location of St. Paul's Church.
                                  Also in 1636, the first known public utility in America went into
                         operation when Adam Thoroughgood established the first ferry. I came across this
                         morning on it successfully (Tidewater Rapid TransiVs Elizabeth River Ferry,
                         operating between Portsmouth and Norfolk), takes about eight minutes, ies cheap,
                         I recommend it to you.


                                                      "In 1636, the first known public utility in Anterica
                                               went into operation .... I canie across this niorning oil it
                                                                     successfully (Elizabeth River Ferry),
                                                                     takes about eight minutes, it's cheap,
                                                                                    I recommend it to you.



                                  As the towns grew on either side of the Elizabeth River, the Scotch
                         merchants - shrewd, frugal, canny, and knowledgeable of trade by sea, emerged as
                         the most affluent and influential group in the area. These merchants were Tories
                         and as the American Revolution approached were loyal to the crown. I'm going to
                         talk for a moment about one of them. His name was Andrew Sprowle. He started
                         business in Norfolk, moved across the river to Portsmouth, purchased one of
                         William Crawford's lots riglit on the Elizabeth River, and set up a private
                         mercantile business. In time, he purchased all of the land south of Portsmouth,
                         down toward the area that Dr. (William) Hargis (fort-ner director, VA Institute of
                         Marine Science) has been discussing as hardest on our fish, and he built a
                         shipyard. He named that community Gosport, very similar to Portsmouth,
                         England, where you have the city of Portsmouth and Gosport where the navy yard
                         is located.
                                  Soon he was servicing not only private craft, but the British Fleet. The
                         American Revolution came along, and Andrew Sprowle now was a great friend
                         of the Colonial governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore. When Dunmore fled
                         Williamsburg, where did he head for? He headed for Gosport, and Sprowle put
                         him up; his headquarters were where the British ships were.








                                                                             Elizabeth River Resto ion


                                              Dunmore occupied Norfolk. He took over most of the region, using
                                      Gosport as his headquarters. And then, learning that the American patriots were
                                      descending on this area from Williamsburg and from the west, he went out to meet
                                      them at what we today know as Great Bridge. A tremendous battle was fought.
                                      Among the soldiers was a very young John Marshall. The Americans
                                      prevailed. Dunmore fled back into Norfolk in great disarray.
                                              Shortly thereafter, Norfolk was burnt to the ground. There has been
                                      ongoing argument for years about who did this. I'll give you a composite of the
                                      best information I have. The guns from Dunmore's ships laid low the waterfront
                                      and about thirty-two of the 1,200 houses in Norfolk. The remainder of the houses,
                                      over 1,000, were burned either by the American patriots -- who were, first, angry
                                      with the Scotch Americans and wanted to get even with them for siding with the
                                      crown, or, secondly, by those of a military bent, who did not want the British to
                                      have Norfolk as a center from which to sail. Norfolk was burned to the
                                      ground; Dunmore retreated again to the other side of the river, and this time he
                                      occupied a position on Hospital Point; you can see it when you walk out of here.
                                              He put his troops there, such that he had left, and 1,500 or so Tories who
                                      assembled to flee with him. He could not maintain a presence there for very long,
                                      and soon they all boarded the ships and went to Matthews County -- where
                                      Dunmore was again defeated and the Tories and the Scotch merchants were
                                      dispersed back to London, to Bermuda, or to Nova Scotia. Andrew Sprowle died
                                      at the battle fought in Matthews County.
                                              Now we, today, regard Thomas Jefferson, and we should, as one of the
                                      greatest Americans. And he was, but he had his bad moments. And those
                                      moments mostly concerned his time as governor of Virginia, when he seemed
                                      completely incapable of keeping the British crafts out of the Elizabeth River
                                      during the American Revolution. Despite all types of warnings, Jefferson did very
                                      little. And as a result, three different British expeditions sailed into the Elizabeth
                                      River and landed at Portsmouth. Norfolk, you will recall, was burned to the
                                      ground; there was nothing over here at the time. The first expedition was in 1779,
                                      the second in1780, and the third in 1781, commanded by, of all people, Benedict
                                      Arnold, who had switched sides. The British sent him down here with a large
                                      force to join up with Cornwallis, coming from the south, to take over the Virginia
                                      province. Cornwallis met the force that had been under Arnold around Petersburg,
                                      and after awhile they withdrew to Portsmouth.
                                              Cornwallis didn't like Portsmouth, but he liked it better than anything
                                      else they had encountered ... he had to choose between setting up at Old Point
                                      Comfort or going to Yorktown. He went to Yorktown, and all of you know what
                                      happened as a result there. He was headquartered right on the Elizabeth, and then
                                      left in 1781 to meet his fate at Yorktown. After the Revolution was over, the
                                      Scots returned to the area almost immediately. Norfolk was destroyed, so they
                                      showed up in Portsmouth, and the people of Portsmouth, with their usual good
                                      judgment, ran them out of town, They would not allow the Scots to settle there,
                                      and so they came over and rebuilt Norfolk. The patriots were starving out in
                                      Princess Anne County and lower Norfolk County, but the Scots in a short titne
                                      were thriving again back in the ruins of Norfolk.







                                                              Elizabeth River Restorat on               6


                                 Now the amount of trade that sprung up by 1801 or 1802 is almost
                         unbelievable. There were so many ships in the harbor out here that the ferry boats
                         had trouble getting back and forth. Millions of dollars in foreign trade was taking
                         place ... Unfortunately, the port thought this prosperity would last forever, but the
                         war came between England and France, the Napoleonic Wars, and the trade with
                         the West Indies that the port of Norfolk had enjoyed so much began to be
                         threatened. First, French privateers began attacking the American vessels and
                         taking them over. Secondly, the British, believing there were British seamen
                         aboard the American ships that had deserted from the British Navy -- and there
                         were -- began boarding the American vessels and taking the British seamen off,
                         and impressing others into service in the British fleet.
                                 Then Jefferson; and this is a bad day for my hero, his solution to all of
                         this, and to the French and British War, was to declare an embargo which stopped
                         all shipping in and out of this port anyway, and killed what would have been a
                         very profitable trade. Well, the war between France and Britain was settled, but
                         the impresssment of seamen and other things caused another conflict.
                                 The first thing that happened, the Chesapeake, which had been built at the
                         Gosport Yard, went out from this harbor and about 12 miles from Cape Henry
                         was confronted by the British frigate Leopard. The Leopa    firing on the
                         Chesapcakc stopped the Chesapeake; wounded some of the men on board; took
                         four sailors off, three of them were Americans and one was British -- and the
                         Chesapeake gravely wounded, limped back into the Elizabeth River to the great
                         embarrassment of this entire nation. The commander of the Chesapeake was
                         Commodore (James) Barron. Steven Decatur, another naval hero, accused
                         Commodore Barron of not facing up to the British. Commodore Barron
                         challenged him to a duel. They meet outside of the state (Bladensboro) and
                         Commodore Barron shot and killed Commodore Decatur. Barron lived a long life
                         in Norfolk and is buried over in Trinity churchyard in Portsmouth.
                                 As a result of this, another war began, and in 1813, four years after the
                         encounter between the Chesapeake and the Leopard another British squadron
                         showed up in the Elizabeth River. They landed a tremendous force at Craney
                         Island. The troops from Portsmouth and Norfolk went out and met them and
                         defeated them. People in this area had been prepared to meet the force with guns
                         on Hospital Point and at Fort Norfolk, but the British were defeated before they
                         ever got that far into the river.
                                 It's been observed that, had the people in Washington met the British with
                         the same enthusiasm as those in this area did in defeating them, Washington would
                         have never been burned and captured.
                                 Now I'd like to hurriedly review for you just a few of the events affecting
                         the Elizabeth River that occurred after the War of 1812 and during the 19th
                         Century. In October of 1820, the Delaware was launched at the Gosport Navy
                         Yard. It was the first of a large number of battleships constructed at that yard.
                         Andrew Sprowle's private yard had become a federal shipyard in 1801.
                                 In 1828, the Dismal Swamp Canal was finally opened after several years
                         of construction. It did not enhance foreign trade, but did provide an easier method
                         of coastal trade from North Carolina to the cities of the north. The Norfolk papers
                         said: "The canal is invaluable. It has staved off ruin. But it will take more than a







                                                                           Elizabeth River Restor ion                   -1


                                     ditch through the Albemarle Sound to make Norfolk a second New York." In
                                     1859, a second canal, the Albemarle and Chesapeake, was opened,
                                             In June 1833, after six years of construction, the first stone dry dock in
                                     America was opened at the Gosport Navy Yard.
                                             In June 1855, the steamer Ben FraWdin in route from St. Thomas to New
                                     York, entered the Elizabeth River for repairs at Gosport. Yellow fever mosquitoes
                                     were in the hold. Within days, there was an epidemic that killed off over 3,000
                                     people in Norfolk and Portsmouth.

                                                                     "In January of 185 7, the temperature dropped
                                                                                            to nine degrees below zero
                                                                                  and the Elizabeth Riverfroze over.
                                                                                 Horses andpedestrians could cross
                                                                               with ease front Norfolk to Portsmouth
                                                                                   andfrom Portsmouth to Norfolk.


                                             In January of 1857, the temperature dropped to nine degrees below zero
                                     and the Elizabeth River froze over. Horses and pedestrians could cross with
                                     ease from Norfolk to Portsmouth and from Portsmouth to Norfolk.
                                             The ports had never reached the potential that many had foresaw for it.
                                     The canals leading into the Elizabeth River were too narrow; the railroads running
                                     out of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York had developed rapidly, due to
                                     superior transportation connections. While the port at Norfolk had been thwarted
                                     by Richmond interests, the frustration of those seeking to develop the port were
                                     such that resolutions were drawn reviving a century-old theme that the towns on
                                     the Elizabeth River should become a part of North Carolina.
                                             The Civil War approached. Both Norfolk and Portsmouth elected
                                     delegates to the Secession Convention who wanted Virginia to remain in the
                                     Union. But Lincoln's announcement that he would start a war to preserve the
                                     Union moved the Virginia convention to secede. In April of 186 1, the Gosport
                                     navy yard was the largest navy yard in the United States, and one of the largest in
                                     the world, and the Union forces were determined not to let the ships in the navy
                                     yard fall over to the Confederate forces. The Confederates began sending
                                     troops into Norfolk and William Mahone, who had constructed what is today the
                                     Norfolk Southern railroad into Norfolk, was a general. He had perhaps four
                                     regiments that he was moving into Norfolk overnight. He rode them in on cars,
                                     standing up. Then they would come out laying down in the cars, so no one
                                     could see them. The man in the crow's nest of the Delaware, in the navy yard,
                                     watched all night, reporting to Washington that 10,000 to 20,000 troops had
                                     moved into Norfolk overnight, counting those same 800, going in standing up, and
                                     coming out, laying down.
                                             Finally, the man in charge of the navy yard panicked. Despite the fact
                                     that under a flag of truce, they had come over to Norfolk and assured the
                                     Confederates that the I I large ships would not leave the harbor, they panicked;
                                     with all the home troops going into Norfolk, and they burned the navy yard, and
                                     they burned all I I of those ships, among them the frigate Merrimac. As all of you







                                                                 Elizabeth River Me oration                   8


                         know, the h1olimar,, a wooden vessel, was brought up and made into one of the
                         world's first iron-clads. A year later, in March of 1862, the Merrimac went out
                         into Hampton Roads and was in the process of destroying the federal fleet there
                         when the Monitor appeared and the famous battle between the iron-clads took
                         place.
                                  That battle was a stand off. The Merrimac' effectiveness was limited to
                         what it could do in the Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads. It was unseaworthy
                         and could not have gone beyond Hampton Roads. At the same time Roanoke
                         Island fell to the Union forces. That outflanked the City of Norfolk. It meant that
                         Norfolk was sitting there to be taken by the Union Army at any time. The
                         Confederates withdrew, and as a result, this harbor, during die war was blockaded
                         as well as occupied by the Federal forces.
                                  I have only given you some of the events, sketchily and briefly, that have
                         happened to the Elizabeth River, but it's easy to observe that in many respects, the
                         history of our nation is intertwined with the history of the Elizabeth River.
                         Sprowle's private shipyard has become the oldest, largest and best naval
                         shipyard in the United States. Sewell's Point, first purchased back in 1620, has
                         become the site of the world's largest naval base. Hospital Point is the site of the
                         oldest naval hospital.
                                  Aside from the military buildup that has taken place, Mahone's railroad
                         coming into Norfolk, its expansion fought so vigorously by the forces in
                         Richmond, has become important in Norfolk, and is today the Norfolk Southern
                         Railroad. The port facilities have been developed, with terminals on all sides, and
                         the largest coal facility in the world.
                                  I have talked about the river's past and you are here today to discuss the
                         river's future. How economic development, which has had so much of a struggle
                         throughout the centuries to come to any fruition, and how the necessary military
                         structure can be maintained, and at the same time the river maintained, is a
                         tremendous challenge. I commend you for undertaking that challenge, and I hope
                         that somewhere there are lessons in the past that will help us in the fidure.


                                                  "How economic development, which has had so much
                                        of a struggle throughout the centuries to come to anyfruition,
                                          and how the necessary military structure can be maintained,
                               and at the sante time the river maintained, is a tremendous challenge.
                                                      I commendyoufor undertaking that challenge








                                                                        Fli7abeth River Restoration              9
















                     Introduction



                                                                                                        Overview
                                            The Watershed Action Plan completes a crucial planning phase for
                                     the Elizabeth River Project in carrying out its mission of a cleaner Elizabeth
                                     River, but by no means represents "the end of the road." The Elizabeth
                                     River Project was founded "toform apartnership among the communities
                                     and all who earn their living from the river, to raise appreciation of its
                                     economic, ecological and recreational importance, and to restore the
                                     Elizabeth River system to the highest practical level of environmental
                                     quality" (mission statement 1993).
                                            Achieving urban watershed restoration requires thousands of
                                     committed people and organizations working patiently over several
                                     decades to carry out hundreds of initiatives. The goal of the Elizabeth
                                     River Project is to see this long-term effort to fruition. A wide spectrum of
                                     interests has been represented both on our Comparative Risk Committees,
                                     as they reached agreement on the river's problems in 1994, and on our
                                     Watershed Action Team as it set recommendations in 1996. Our
                                     committees and intervening public conferences have set forth a promising
                                     road map for restoring environmental quality.
                                             Non, the Elizabeth River Project proceeds to the next task:
                                     bringing environmental restoration to reality by initiating
                                     implementation of the Watershed Action Plax
                                            While the independent, non-profit Elizabeth River Project does not
                                     have the resources or the authority to carry out large-scale improvement
                                     projects directly, our Board of Directors is committed to serving in a
                                     catalyst role to see that the recommendations of the Watershed Action
                                     Team are implemented by those with the most appropriate authority and







                                                              Elizabeth River Restomlion                   10


                         capabilities. The project has proven successful in this role already by virtue
                         of its commitment to bringing all parties to identify common interests.
                                  The Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, VA Secretary of Natural
                         Resources, has pledged her commitment to giving "every consideration" to
                         implementation of the plan. The state provided almost $100,000 in direct
                         and contracted support to develop the recommendations. The EPA's
                         Chesapeake Bay Program has budgeted more than $80,000 for the
                         Elizabeth River Project to implement the plan, including money for a
                         wetlands restoration we will carry out in partnership with the City of
                         Norfolk.
                                  Congress has authorized a $400,000 study of projects the US
                         Army Corps of Engineers could implement related to the plan (funding
                         pending). The 1996 VA General Assembly approved $250,000 for
                         increased monitoring and $200,000 for removal of derelict vessels in the
                         Elizabeth River over the next two years. The passenger schooner,
                         American Rover is starting Elizabeth River education for school
                         children.
                                  Our fundamental challenge is to keep the momentum going. We
                         look to you as the essential ingredient for the success of the actions that
                         follow.
                                  Join us in achieving our Watershed Action Team's vision of 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


                                                                                       State of the river

                                  The Elizabeth River provides bountifully for Hampton Roads, in
                         economic terms. She is the magnificent setting for attractions such as Norfolk's
                         new National Maritime Center, Nauticus and Harbor Park ballfield. She is one of
                         the world's busiest shipping highways, carrying not only the world's largest
                         military fleets, but the foreign ships of an expanding commercial port. She hosts
                         thousands of recreational boaters on the Intercoastal Waterway and hundreds of
                         thousands party on her shores during Harborfest.
                                  At the same time, the Elizabeth River remains one of the more seriously
                         degraded urban rivers in the United States. Originally a broad, shallow estuary of
                         the Chesapeake Bay, the river has been dredged to twice her normal depth and
                         filled to two-thirds her normal width to accommodate three centuries of
                         development. Toxics accumulating in the river's muddy floor have been correlated








                                                                          Efizabeth River Restor ion


                                      with health problems in fish, including tumors, cataracts and other abnormalities,
                                      and may cause risks for human health as well. As much as 50 percent of tidal
                                      wetlands have been lost on the Elizabeth River since World War II.
                                              Many of the river's problems have abated with the rise in
                                      environmental consciousness of the last decades. Industrial discharges into the
                                      river are extensively regulated and significantly cleaner. Municipal improvements
                                      include a state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant. Large challenges remain for the
                                      300-square-mile watershed, however.
                                              The most serious risks currently facing the Elizabeth River watershed
                                      were ranked in 1994 by diverse committees of the Elizabeth River Project. Eighty
                                      representatives from citizen, business, government and scientific interests met for
                                      seven months to analyze and debate the river's problems in a project funded by the
                                      US Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Environmental Endowment.
                                      These "Comparative Risk" committees agreed on four problems posing a "high
                                      risk" to human health, quality of life and the ecosystem in the Elizabeth River
                                      watershed: 1) sediment contamination, 2) loss of habitat and aquatic life, 3)
                                      non-point source" pollution, arriving from many diff-used sources, primarily
                                      stormwater runoff, and 4) "point-source pollution," involving discharges from
                                      industrial facilities.
                                              In technical studies for this Watershed Action Plan, URS Consultants in
                                      1995 further identifed stormwater runoff as responsible for as much as 88 percent
                                      of heavy metals entering the river, and as much as 99 percent of another leading
                                      river culprit, polycyclic aromatic hydrocoarbons (PAH's).
                                              The Comparative Risk Committees also expressed an over-arching
                                      concern for human health risks associated with the Elizabeth River. The
                                      committees advised against near-shore swimming in the river, or working or
                                      wading in the mud of the Southern Branch, due to contaminants. Bacterial counts
                                      are too high for consumption of shellfish directly from the river. The risk of cancer
                                      due to ingestion of PCB-contaminted fish is significant and has been calculated at
                                      I in 10,000, using limited data from the Southern Branch.
                                              Our committees have consistently been concerned with environmental
                                      justice issues as well. On the Elizabeth River, these seem to go hand in hand with
                                      human health concerns. Some population groups are more at risk of illness from
                                      the river than others, including those engaged in recreational boating or
                                      subsistence fishing, and pregnant women or nursing mothers who cat fish or
                                      shellfish from the river.




                                                                                                 History of the plan

                                              This Watershed Action Plan is the result of the Hampton Roads
                                      community taking responsibility for our own environmental challenges, with
                                      timely government help.
                                              The non-profit Elizabeth River Project was hatched in 1991 by four local
                                      citizens around a kitchen table. Their premise: This river's large problems will not
                                      be solved by government alone, but by a new level of community stewardship. In







                                                               Elizabeth River Restoration                 12


                          1994, with funding from the US EPA and the private VA Environmental
                          Endowment, the Elizabeth River Project steered 80 volunteers from all walks of
                          life through a seven-month process of analysis and debate leading to agreement
                          on the river's worst problems.
                                   Meanwhile, the tri-state Chesapeake Bay Program designated the
                          Elizabeth River as one of three toxic "Regions of Concern" on the Bay. On
                          October 14, 1994, Virginia Gov. George F. Allen signed a commitment to lower
                          toxics in these regions of concern.
                                   The State turned to the Elizabeth River Project for stakeholder
                          recommendations. In March 1995, the Elizabeth River Project entered a
                          partnership agreement with Secretary of Natural Resources Becky Norton
                          Dunlop. State funding was provided for the Project to develop recommendations
                          on toxics reduction as an integrated part of a larger Watershed Action Plan of the
                          Elizabeth River Project's EPA-sponsored planning process. Actions address not
                          only toxics, but also the "high risk" problems of sediment contamination, habitat
                          loss, point-source and non-point source pollution.
                                   A 120-member Watershed Action Team kicked off on April 27, 1995.
                          Over the following year, the team worked in four taskfoces: a Habitat & Living
                          Resources Task Force, a Sediment Quality Task Force, a Water Quality Task
                          Force and a Toxics Reduction Team. Members represented the spectrum of
                          business, government, citizen and scientific concerns. These volunteers developed
                          hundreds of pages of discussion papers before achieving consensus Feb. 29/March
                          1, 1996. Consultants also provided background reports. Actions were chosen
                          based on three criteria: effectiveness, affordability and acceptability to the
                          communiy. Each action recommended was judged to be effective in reducing
                          high-risk problems of the watershed. For each, it was thought reasonable that
                          funding could be found and benefits appeared to outweigh costs. Each was
                          considered acceptable enough to reach implementation, although acceptability was
                          hardest to guage. The Elizabeth River Project mailed 1,000 questionnaires on
                          acceptability in winter 1995 and established a Leadership Review Board to
                          obtain input from the highest levels of authority, influence and knowledge on river
                          issues.




                                                                                            Critical areas


                                   The Action Team identified the following as "critical areas" deserving the
                          most resources at this time:
                                   Action I - Reduce sediment contamination;
                                   Action 2 - Increase wetlands, vegetated buffers and forested
                                           areas;
                                   Action 5 - Engage in pollution prevention and sustainable
                                           landscaping;
                                   Action 6 - Reduce pollution from stormwater runoff,
                                   Action 14 - Establish an Elizabeth River monitoring program and
                                           data bank.








                                                                                         -MMMIP_
                                                            FliZabah River Restoration     . 1 13



                                     The team recognizes these as key actions for the health of the river,
                              although the team also expressed concern that too much emphasis on a few
                              priorities could weaken the integrated watershed approach that is a key strength
                              ofthe Action Plan. "Restoration is different from habitat creation, reclamation
                              andrehabilitation -- its a holistic process not acheived through the isolated
                              manipulation ofindividual elements," according to the National Research Council
                              (Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, 1992).
                                     The Team strongly recommends that implementation move forward
                              with all 18 actions. All 18 met the test of the team's criteria: affordable,
                              acceptable and effective.




                                                        "Restoration is d@fferentftom habitat creation,
                                    reclamation and rehabilitation -- it is a holistic process not achieved
                                             through the isolated manipulation of individual elements. "
                                             Restoration of Aquatic EcoVstcms, National Research Council, 1992








                                                                     Elizabeth River Restoration              14












                       ACTION AGENDA



                                          "We applaud the broadpublic involvement in the
                                 Elizabeth River Project and the orderly progress toward cleanup."
                                                The Virginian-Pilot editorial, Jan. 22, 1996
 






                                 IF-lizAbeth River Restoration -J5-

     77

                                           CHESAPEAKE
                                                B A Y









































                                                    10,
              J,































    Mob-








                                                                    Flizabeth River 9?estoration              16





                                                    Section 1: Addressini! iDast harm


                                             Goak To restore the health, aesthetics and
                                               diverse ecosystems of the Elizabeth River.


                                                      "The highest levels of shellfish andfinfish contamitiation
                                                  in the Chesapeake Bay were observed in the Elizabeth River
                                                                                and in the Baltimore Harbor.
                                                            Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan for Toxics Reduction,
                                                                                        Draft Report, Nov. 30, 1995





                    Action 1


                            Reduce sediment contamination in the Elizabeth River to
                    levels non-toxic to humans and aquatic life, remediating the
                    highest priority contaminated sites by the year 2010.

                                    Stepsfor getting there.
                                                                                                  1996-2010
                                           Step 1: Establish an on-going relationship between the Elizabeth
                                    River Project, the US Army Corps of Engineers Elizabeth River Basin
                                    Study, and the EPA Superfund Program, for the purpose of promoting
                                    speedy, effective implementation and public understanding and support for
                                    the following priority objectives:

                                           -.*@ Identify areas where sediments are determined to be the most
                                           contaminated and select best alternatives to remediate them, using
                                           guidelines in the EPA Handbook for the Remediation o
                                           Contaminated Sediments (EPA, 1991).

                                           + Conduct a demonstration remediation at one of the most
                                           contaminated sites.







                                                                         Elizabeth River Zestor ion                   17



                                                Remediate the highest priority contaminated sites by 2010. ME,
                                            must be pursued as one part of an integrated watershed initiative
                                            also addressing upland sources of contamination.

                                                                                                             By 1996
                                            Step 2: Support development of "in situ" bioremediation
                                    technology by the Virginia Center for Innovative Technology and the
                                    University of Virginia's Department of Chemical Engineering.

                                                                                                             By 1997
                                            Step 3: Demonstrate sediment remediation techniques in a creek
                                    or small waterway as part of an integrated demonstration project also
                                    modeling other actions proposed in the Plan. Several task forces have
                                    identified the general area of Paradise Creek as pron-dsing for such a
                                    demonstration effort.
                                                                                                              By 1998
                                            Step 4: Establish Sediment Quality Guidelines to provide
                                    consistent, objective guidance on levels at which sediments are considered.
                                    contaminated. VA Department of Environmental Quality could be
                                    approached to become the lead agency for this. Initial guidelines should bel
                                    adopted from other efforts such as those of NOAA or the State of Florida,
                                    although some benchmarks for the Elizabeth already exist. Over time,
                                    comprehensive guidelines for the Elizabeth River could be adopted as par@
                                    of the comprehensive monitoring and data collection program outlined
                                    elsewhere in the Plan. Sediment quality guidelines are proposed as an
                                    essential aide for making sound decisions, but are not intended to have the
                                    weight of regulatory standards. (originally proposed as a separate actiori)


                                                                                                Background action! I
                   Problem addressed:
                           High levels of pollutants accumulating over centuries in the muddy bottom of the river have been
                           linked to health problems in fish, including tumors, cataracts and abnormalities, and may pose
                           health risks for humans as well. Sediment contamination is one of four high-risk problems
                           identified in 1994 by the Elizabeth River Project's Comparative Risk Committees.
                   Stressors reduced:
                           Heavy metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc, toxic
                           organic compounds dominated by fossil fuel-based combustion products/byproducts called
                           polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs, plastic related chemicals called plithalates, and other
                           industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, other chemical contaminants
                           including oxygen-demanding organic chemicals, and pathogens.
                   Estimated costs:
                           Costs depend on many factors including engineering, permitting, quantities of sediment to be
                           removed, transport distances, treatment measures and method of disposal. Dredging as a means
                           of remediating contaminated sediments is roughly estimated to be in the range of $6 to $8 per







                                                                                     Elizabeth River Restomlion                @@ I


                                   cubic yard, provided a confined disposal facility is available. If a confined disposal facility is not
                                   available, costs may escalate significantly. Capping is considered to be rougl-dy comparable.
                                   Costs for on-shore bioremediation treatment range from $50 to $200 per cubic yard, and require
                                   dredging and an on-shore treatment facility.
                         Indicators for measuring success:
                                   Health, population and diversity of benthic biota, levels of sediment contamination, percentage
                                   of high-priority contaminated sites remediated.


                         Discussion of Step 1:
                                             The US Army Corps of Engineers has received Congressional authorization (funding
                                   pending) for an Elizabeth River Basin Study as part of its on-going Environmental Restoration
                                   Program. This is a cooperative effort co-sponsored by the Commonwealth of Virginia with
                                   endorsements from the Cities of Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Norfolk and Virginia Beach. The study
                                   will build on findings of the Elizabeth River Project, which solicited the Corps' involvement and
                                   actively encouraged local and state cooperation with the Corps.
                                             The first phase of the Corps program will be a reconnaissance study which, in part,
                                   should address remediation of contaminated sediments. This reconnaissance will be followed by
                                   a comprehensive feasibility study and design and implementation phases. In the later phases, the
                                   local and state governments will be asked to consider sharing costs (25 percent shared by local
                                   and/or state sponsors; 75 percent by the federal government).
                                             The Corps program is viewed as the most effective, affordable and acceptable avenue for
                                   carrying out the major steps needed for sediment remediation in the Elizabeth River watershed,
                                   including identifying the most highly contaminated sites, selecting the best alternatives to
                                   reinediate them and carrying out remediation. The pace at which the Corps is able to proceed is
                                   currently dictated by federal policy. The pace can be accelerated by Congress. It is. recommended
                                   that the Elizabeth River Project establish an on-going relationship with the Army Corps of
                                   Engineers, Norfolk District, to provide public understanding and support for speedy, effective
                                   iniplententation ofinutual objectives. The requirement for cost-sharing the design and
                                   implementation of sediment remediation projects should enable municipalities to express the
                                   needs of their citizens and local interests.
                                             In a separate effort focusing on the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc., Superfund site in
                                   Portsmouth, die US Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the VA Department
                                   of Environmental Quality, has issued a Proposed Remedial Action Plan to present EPA's
                                   Preferred Remedial Alternative for Operable Unit I of the Superfund Plan; cleaning up surface
                                   soil, sediment and Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid contamination at the site (EPA, June 1995).
                                             With the exception of cleaning up sediments in a small inlet at the mouth of a storm
                                   drain, this effort does not address the remediation of contaminated sediments located in the river
                                   bed offshore of the site. The proposed Superfund plan indicates such action will be included in
                                   later steps. It is recommended that the Elizabeth River Project offer to assist in this effort and
                                   recommend actions now in order to expedite remediation of offshore contaminated sediments.
                                   Perhaps the Superfund effort could be coordinated with the Corps program and the costs shared.
                                             Based on data available, the likeliest areas of high contamination by toxic organic
                                   compounds are offshore of past wood creosote treatment facilities and possibly oil terminals and
                                   shipyards (a fuller explanation is included in the discussion paper, "Remediate/Remove
                                   Contaminated Sediments," developed for this plan and available separately), The preferred
                                   alternative would be to remediate the toxic organic contamination at these sites using "in situ"
                                   biodegradation technology. In situ means the remediation takes place without removing the
                                   sediment from the river. If the site is contaminated with heavy metals, then capping, containment
                                   in geotextile containers or removal and treatment may be necessary. If removal, treatment and
                                   deposition are required, then on-shore facilities and some confined disposal facility capability
                                   will be needed. The regulations pertaining to the Craney Island Disposal Area either need to be








                                                                                Elizabeth River Mstoration                        19


                               changed to accept contaminated (possibly treated) sediments from non-navigable areas or odier
                               facilities need to be created. If sites are contaminated with both toxic organic compounds and
                               heavy metals, more than one approach may be necessary.
                                        A concern during the removal and transport of contaminated sediments is the danger of
                               introducing contaminants into previously uncontaminated areas. Contamination during these
                               steps occurs primarily from the resuspension of sediments during removal, from spills and leaks
                               during transport, and from leaching during dewatering. Accordingly, non-dredging remedial
                               options, including in situ containment or remediation, may be more acceptable to the public and
                               should be thoroughly considered.

                     Discussion of Step 2:
                                        The concept of remediating sediments "in situ, " or without removal from die river bed,
                               is very appealing for applications such as the Elizabeth River, where there are many areas
                               contaminated with organic compounds, often in shallow waters. The disadvantages of other
                               alternatives requiring removal, transport, treatment, and disposal can be avoided. There should
                               not be any resuspension of contaminated sediments, treatment of contaminated sediments should
                               require less effort although may take longer to accomplish, and costs may be less than many
                               alternatives. However, d-ds is an emerging technology with few in situ applications.
                                        Recent development of an in situ bioreniediation technology by the Virginia Center for
                               Innovative Technology (CIT) and the University of Virginia's Department of Chemical
                               Engineering (DCE), with contracted assistance, shows promise. Bioremediation relies on
                               indigenous or introduced bacteria to degrade organic compounds in soils or sediments. In this
                               case, bench tests found that anaerobic bacteria transported to die bottom in porous silicon beads
                               migrate outward as they feed on organic contaminants, converting them to harmless byproducts.
                               The sponsors in this effort intend to field test this technology at a site in the Elizabeth River
                               contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other organic contaminants.
                               The sponsors have invited the Elizabeth River Project to propose die site. It is recoinmended that
                               the Project support this effort, including expediting testing of results, and consider co-funding a
                               small demonstration project if test results are positive.

                      Discussion of Step 3:
                                        It would be advantageous to begin sediment remediation efforts in a more controlled
                               environment, such as a tributary creek, where results could be more readily monitored, likelihood
                               of recontamination from adjoining waters would be reduced, and sediment reinediation processes
                               could be integrated with other desirable water and sediment quality improvements such as
                               shoreline rehabilitation and establishment of on-shore buffer areas. The remediation efforts in
                               such a well-defined area would be highly visible to the community and offer excellent prospects
                               for public involvement. The sediment remediation options for this strategy are basically the same
                               as already described, but would more likely reflect the presence of shallower water depths and
                               narrower waterways.
                                        A possible site would be Paradise Creek. A significant portion of the shoreline near the
                               mouth is still relatively undeveloped and a good prospect for restoration, preferably for public use
                               and marine habitat. The shoreline Mher up die creek is primarily residential. Communities
                               and alongshore residents would be very interested in efforts to improve the water and sediment
                               quality of the creek and possible recreational improvements. These efforts would likely increase
                               civic pride and property values.
                                        The extent of sediment contamination in Paradise Creek is not well known at this time
                               due to a lack of sampling, but it is expected to be somewhat contaminated due to the proximity to
                               contaminated landfills and known contamination nearby in the Elizabeth River. The Norfolk
                               Naval Shipyard is located along the north shore of the creek at its mouth. The Navy is presently
                               conducting an environmental restoration of its facilities as part of the Naval Installation
                               Restoration Program. The Elizabeth River Project appreciates this effort and encourages the







                                                                                  F107.abeth Riva Restoration                     20


                                 environmental restoration of facilities along the river, especially the Norfolk Naval Shipyard. A
                                 Phase I Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study has been conducted at the
                                 shipyard. This study documented some contamination of soils on-shore. However, there is
                                 insufficient information available to fully determine the contamination of soils alongshore and
                                 sediments offshore in Paradise Creek. The restoration of the on-shore area and off-shore in
                                 Paradise Creek should be conducted in conjunction with each other to avoid the possibility of
                                 recontamination from either site.


                        Discussion of Step 4.
                                           Sediment quality guidelines are commonly used to evaluate overall ecosystem health and
                                 diversity. They provide a means of screening potentially impacted areas to determine when
                                 remedial action is appropriate. Without the benefit of sediment quality guidelines, decisions
                                 concerning what is and what is not contaminated become very subjective.
                                           Sediment quality guidelines, once formulated, will allow sites to be screened readily to
                                 identify, on a consistent basis, those sediments which are truly impacting the resources of the
                                 river. Since sediments influence the environmental fate of many toxic and bioaccumulative
                                 substances, they are a link between chemical and biological processes, including those related to
                                 human health via accumulation and magnification of contaminants in die food chain.
                                           Sediment contaminant problems present a complex challenge to both scientists and
                                 regulatory managers in the development of sediment quality guidelines designed to protect
                                 aquatic resources. There are currently eight different approaches to developing sediment quality
                                 guidelines. They are identified and discussed in a background report , "Establish Sediment
                                 Quality Guidelines," developed during the deliberations of the Watershed Action Team and
                                 available separately.
                                           The acceptability of adopting sediment quality guidelines will be increased by
                                 preventing them from becoming a regulatory requirement and by stressing their primary purpose
                                 of screening impacted areas on a consistent basis. Acceptability will be increased further if the
                                 point is made that funding for projects involving remediation of "contaminated" sediments will
                                 be more likely to occur if the characterization of "contaminated" is defined by an adopted
                                 guideline.






                        Actoon 2
                                 Increase vegetated buffers, wetlands acreage and
                        forested areas, where possible also serving these related
                        objectives:
                                               increasing public access,
                                               reducing shoreline erosion,
                                           4-  filtering run-off pollution,
                                           4-  maintaining the economic productivity of the river,
                                               restoring habitat,
                                               enhancing aesthetics and quality of life.









                                                                                         _0004-_
                                                        Elizabeth River Restoration             21


                       Stepsfor geidng there:

                                                                                    1997-2010
                              SteP 1: Actively pursue wetlands restoration and conservation
                       opportunities, maximizing effectiveness, acceptability and affordability by
                       following these principles:

                              0.- Concentrate on areas where losses have been the greatest. The
                              Southern Branch lost twice as much wetlands as any other branch
                              from 1944 to 1977.


                              Oo To assure effectiveness, restore historical wetland areas where
                              possible. ffistorical wetlands tend to retain remnants of their
                              natural hydrology.

                              0.- Affordability can be enhanced by focusing on publicly held land
                              where possible rather than purchasing private sites. Reserve
                              purchase of private sites and easements to those critical areas which
                              may be identified.

                              I.- To assure acceptability, focus on marginally developable real
                              estate, including sites somewhat removed from the river that are not
                              readily developable and do not involve the loss of an existing
                              habitat or resource.


                                                                                             1997
                              Step 2: Implement the Elizabeth River Project's Wetlands
                       Restoration Demonstration Project, designed for a one-acre site behind the
                       Larchmont Library. Preliminary design is completed and the project has
                       been endorsed by numerous entities including the City of Norfolk, owners
                       of the property; the area civic league, area scientists and the library.
                       Implementation awaits,final approval of significant funding from the US
                       EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program in Annapolis.

                              Step 3: Identify opportunities to assist with existing
                       demonstration projects, including the Vegetated Buffer Demonstration
                       Project of VA Tech and NOAA/DEQ Coastal Resources Management
                       Program. The program is considering Watershed Action Team
                       recommendations for sites on the Elizabeth River to begin planting as early
                       as'Spring 1996. This may become an on-going project. The Elizabeth
                       River Project should consider recruiting, coordinating and training an
                       on-going bank of volunteers in support of this program.







                                                                                    Elizabeth River Restoration                        22


                                                    Step 4: Complete an inventory, assessment and restoration                      1998
                                           priorities report in conjunction with comprehensive monitoring and data
                                           collection recommended elsewhere in the Plan. Should include
                                           identification of existing vegetated, forested and wetlands areas; potential
                                           sites for reforestation, vegetated buffer and wetlands restoration or
                                           creation, based on principles in step 1; potential river corridors and
                                           potential wetlands banks.

                                                    Step 5: Based on this inventory, develop percentage-based
                                           measurable objectives in each of the following areas: increasing wetlands,
                                           increasing forested acreage and increasing vegetated buffers. Develop and
                                           implement strategies to meet these objectives through local planning;
                                           enhanced stewardship of public and private land; and critical land and
                                           easement acquisition.

                                                    Step 6: Increase public awareness of the benefits of forested areas
                                           and increase public participation in tree planting activities. Consider an
                                           Elizabeth River Day for tree plantings. Establish five tree steward chapters
                                           per year working with the Urban Forestry Council.


                                                                                                                                   2000
                                                    Step 7.- Develop a strategy to promote contiguous "corridors" of
                                           habitat and large wetland areas. Capitalize on the higher effectiveness of
                                           habitat corridors and large wetlands preserves as opposed to isolated,
                                           4tpostage stamp" projects and piecemeal approaches. Adapt a "river
                                           corridor" program from successful efforts such as that of the Wildlife.
                                           Habitat Council, which has a "river corridor" project underway on the
                                           James River in Chesterfield County. Note: NOAA/DEQ Coastal
                                           Resources Program sets aside $200,000 per year for land and easement
                                           acquisition grants which have not been tapped in several years.



                                                                                                              Background action 2
                        Problem addressed:
                                  The Elizabeth River's 350-milc shoreline has experienced extensive loss of wetlands and
                                  "vegetated buffers," natural areas which may mix trees, shrubs and grasses. As much as 50
                                  percent of tidal wetlands were lost on the Elizabeth River between 1944 and 1977. Vegetated
                                  buffers provide habitat, absorb runoff, trap sediments and filter pollutants. The vegetation also
                                  stabilizes the shore, takes up potentially harmfid nutrients, improves aesthetics, improves air
                                  quality and controls floods. Construction of new and restoration of historical wetlands will help
                                  reverse the trend of wetland losses in the watershed and will increase and improve the quality of
                                  available habitat.







                                                                           Elizabeth River Restorati n-                  23


                   Stmssors Reduced:
                            Losses from filling, dredging and urban development; sedimentation, habitat fragmentation and
                            shoreline hardening; runoff pollution, loss and fragmentation of habitat, dc-forestation, toxics.
                   Costs:
                            Vary significantly with site conditions. King and Bohlen (1994) gave an average cost of
                            developing an acre of salt marsh at $18,000 with a range of $1,000 to $43,600
                            excluding land costs.
                   Indicators for Success:
                            Acreage of wetlands and vegetated buffers and forested acreage restored or created can be
                            measured and compared to existing and historical acreage. Functional assessments can also be
                            performed to determine ecological value. Also wildlife counts, tree counts, rate of erosion,
                            pollutant concentrations and water quality monitoring.

                   Discussion of wetlands restoration:
                                     Historically, tidal wetlands within the watershed have suffered significant losses from
                            dredging, filling and urban development. Preliminary results from mapping efforts by the VA
                            Institute of Marine Science indicate that as much as 50 percent of tidal wetlands existing in 1944
                            had been lost by 1977. With the passage of the Wetlands Act in 1972, permitted losses of tidal
                            wetlands in the watershed have been reduced to a few acres or less each year.
                                     The technology exists to construct tidal wetlands with a high degree of certainty and
                            reliability. Since about 1980, most major construction projects approved in the watershed have
                            required compensatory mitigation to offset tidal wetlands losses. This policy has resulted in the
                            construction of over 30 acres of tidal wetlands in the Elizabeth River since 1982. The vast
                            majority of these projects has been successful at establishing wetlands vegetation. Studies have
                            demonstrated the use of these wetlands as fish and wildlife habitat, their role as a source of
                            primary production to support estuarine food webs and their effectiveness in water quality
                            improvement and as sediment traps.

                   Discussion of vegetated buffers:
                            The action is to create, restore and maintain vegetated buffer areas adjacent to the shoreline (+ or
                            - 100 feet) to address the stressors on watershed habitat and living resources. Vegetation may be
                            chosen from four categories to meet site needs:
                                     *   Forested buffers may be considered where pines and hardwoods can be established.
                                     VA Dept. of Forestry and local government forestry staff can recommend species and
                                     assist in planting design.
                                     e   Mixed buffers involve mixtures of trees, shrubs and grasses. Good for public access
                                     if paths are maintained.
                                     9   Sluub and grass communities are primarily geared for wildlife habitat and low
                                     maintenance, as well as nutrient and sediment reduction.
                                     * Grasses and non-woody plant communities provide public access and recreation.
                                     Can mow entire areas or mow paths and bushhog odier areas occasionally to keep height
                                     down. Possible plants include grasses, wildflowers and erosion control plants such as
                                     lespedeza or switcligrass.
                                     Effectiveness of vegetated buffers is well-established by research. Some questions
                            remain such as effectiveness to reduce particular pollutants; optimum buffer width and plant mix.
                            Additional documentation on habitat values may be needed. An existing local zoning regulatory
                            program, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas, is in place to help protect buffer areas within the
                            watershed.


                   Discussion of increasingforested acreage:








                                                                                                                    -.Mm-
                                                                              Elizabeth River Restoration                    24


                                        Increase forested acreage in watershed through: a) Involvement of small land parcels
                               and b) Involvement of large land holdings. Research and adapt plans from other
                               successful watershed reforestation efforts (listed), identifying potential reforestation areas in
                               Elizabeth River basin through a baseline inventory.
                                            Delaware's Inland Bays Management Plan advocates tree planting with the
                                        Department of Agriculture and Department of Forestry.
                                        0   Anacostia River restoration project has a part of its Goal No. 5 to expand forest
                                        cover throughout the watershed and create a contiguous corridor of forest.
                                        o   James River Association advocates a regional greenway system to connect historic
                                        and recreational areas along the James and tributaries.
                                        A large number of support organizations exist to provide assistance, expertise and funds
                               for reforestation. Already contacted and pledged to help are staff members of Parks and
                               Recreation Departments, City of Norfolk & City of Portsmouth; VA Department of Forestry and
                               a private tree specialist in Norfolk. Organizations with potential interest include garden clubs,
                               civic organizations, Scouts, environmental groups, students, teachers, Audubon Society, City
                               Planning, Dept. of Agriculture, the Sierra Club's Atlantic Coast Eco-Region campaign and
                               National Arbor Day committees.








                          Elizabeth River Wetlan,                                                                    abitat Lo
                           1944-1977
                          Lafayette River







                                     N 1944 Shoreline
                                     N 1977 Shoreline
                                     /V Primary Roads
                                     /V Secondary Roads                                                                                       71
                                         1944 Tidal Marshes
                                          1977 Tidal Marshes



















                                   -owl
                                    so      0                                                                                                                                                              S rce@ USGS Topographic M


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        tj








                                                                                  Flimbeth lUver Restoration                       26


                                  Elizabeth River Wetland Habitat Loss
                                  1944-1977
                                  Southern Branch







































                                                            N 1944 Shoreline
                                                            N 1977 Shoreline
                                                            /V Primary Roads
                                                            NSecondary Roads
                                                               1944 Tidal Marshes
                                                               1977 Tidal Marshes

                                      -W

                                       klo@t@s -
                                   a      f       2                                     Source: USGS Topographic Map, 1944, 1977.







                                                                       Fli7abeth River Restoration               _22




                  Actio 3
                           Implement habitat enhancement programs at 25 percent
                  of watershed businesses and government facilities by the year
                  2005, where possible simultaneously:
                                   4- increasing public access,
                                   -.*- increasing wetlands, forested acreage and vegetated buffers;
                                   4- reducing shoreline erosion,
                                   -*.- filtering run-off pollution,
                                   I'- enhancing aesthetics and quality of life.

                                   Stepsfor getting there:
                                                                                                           By 1997
                                           Step 1: Encourage business and government facilities to enhance
                                   habitat on unused, marginally developable property by providing a "how
                                   to" resource service and "green award" program. The Elizabeth River
                                   Project should develop this service in cooperation with the Wildlife Habitat
                                   Council in Silver Spring, MID, which appears successful in:

                                           4- enhancing habitat through low-cost steps such as planting small
                                           plots of seed crops or building bird houses for targeted species;

                                           -.*- building enthusiastic employee participation (employee Scout
                                           troops, etc., appear eager to help with plantings); and

                                           -.*- providing recognition certificates and other steps for achieving
                                           positive public relations.

                                                                                              Background action 3
                  Problem addressed:
                           The Elizabeth River watershed is about 90 percent developed, with extensive loss of fringe
                           grasses, forested areas and other habitat. The loss of habitat was identified as one of four high
                           risk problems in 1994 by the Elizabeth River Project's Comparative Risk Committees.
                  Indicators for success:
                           Wildlife counts, number of facilities participating, acreage of river corridors.
                  Stessors reduced:
                           Loss of habitat, habitat ftagmentation.
                  Estimated costs:
                           Costs to business and goverrunent facilities is estimated to be low with ready
                           sources of donated materials and labor for such altruistic endeavors. Costs of
                           developing a resource service should be explored as a cooperative agreement with
                           Wildlife Habitat Council.








                                                                       Eli7abeth River Restoration               28





                    Action 4
                             Minimize erosion along rapidly eroding shorelines by
                     2010, also rehabilitating existing hardened shorelines to use
                     naturalized erosion measures wherever practical.

                                    Stepsfor geffing there:
                                                                                                             1998
                                                    Step 1: Promote the use of natural shoreline features to
                                     control erosion:


                                             #*** Construct non-structural shoreline rehabilitation demonstration
                                             projects promoting the economic and ecological benefits of using
                                             natural shoreline features to control erosion.


                                                Pursue new technologies with non-structural and structural
                                             approaches to shoreline rehabilitation.

                                             4.- Elizabeth River Project should endorse reinstatement of former
                                             funding to VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation's Shoreline
                                             Erosion and Advisory Service (SEAS) which offers no-cost site
                                             inspections to advise waterfront property owners on minimizing
                                             erosion. Funding has been reduced to minimal by the General
                                             Assembly.

                                             -*.- Establish a goal of total linear feet of sloped and grassed
                                             shorelines exceeding linear feet of vertical shorelines by 2010.


                                             Step 2: Identify and address problem areas.

                                             4- Identify degraded marsh habitats and erosion prone reaches
                                             within the watershed in connection with comprehensive data
                                             collection described elsewhere in the Plan. Develop restoration
                                             strategies to restore lost wetland functions for controlling erosion,
                                             including wave energy dissipation, sediment trapping, flood
                                             buffering.

                                             -*e Identify shoreline areas experiencing moderate to heavy erosion
                                             and develop shoreline rehabilitation options (non-structural or
                                             structural) to control/minimize erosion.







                                                                Elizabeth Rim Restor ion                 29



                                       4- Explore methods to reduce erosion caused by boat wakes.
                                       Explore the need for more extensivezones and for enhanced
                                       compliance with existing restrictions.

                                                                                                      2000
                                       Step 3: Develop and institute a successful incentive program for
                               managing erosion-prone shorelines. Incentives to be explored include:

                                       ,e.- Various combinations of grants, cost-sharing and preferential
                                       tax, loan and insurance policies closely tied to existing regulatory
                                       and advisory programs (Byrne, et al., 1979). Maryland's Shoreline
                                       Erosion Control construction fund is listed by Byrne as one
                                       example of a direct incentive approach.

                                       -*.- Enabling legislation authorizing local governments to design,
                                       construct and maintain shoreline defense structures on a shoreline
                                       reach basis, through creation of erosion abatement districts with
                                       limited bonding power (Byrne, et al., 1979). Upon establishment of
                                       local districts, the local government could issue two-way bonds for
                                       financing of the construction of suitable erosion abatement
                                       structures for the district and to assess individual property owners
                                       along the shoreline for the purpose of repaying bonds and financing
                                       maintenance costs (Established in Florida, Connecticut, Maine and
                                       Maryland).

                                                                                     Background action 4
                Stessors Reduced:
                        Shoreline erosion, sedimentation and siltation.
                Problem addressed:
                        A loss of fringe marshes and other development impacts have contributed to high erosion.
                        Results include a loss of valuable uplands as well as ecological damage.
                Costs:
                        Salt marsh creation has been estimated to average $18, 100 per acre but can vary widely by site.
                        Stone revetments average $55 - $65 per linear foot. Timber bulkheads average $75 - $85 per
                        linear foot.
                Indicators for Success:
                        Reduced upland erosion, sediment loads, water column turbidity and toxic inputs and improved
                        habitat quality, water quality and aesthetics.

                Discussion of action 4.
                               Benefits resulting from successful rehabilitation projects outweigh implementation costs
                        and include eliminating the loss of valuable upland, improving water and sediment quality by
                        reducing sediment inputs and treating storinwater runoff, providing habitat and food resources
                        for fish and wildlife, enhanced aesthetics, and providing possible long term protection against
                        effective sea level rise (Garbish et. al., 1994). Economic savings could be considerable as well if
                        dredging frequencies for ship berths and navigable channels are reduced.








                                                                                                                      -.Mgbft-
                                                                                Elizabeth River Restoration             R   . 30


                                          Shoreline rehabilitation via structural means (bulkheads, etc.) is readily accepted by the
                                 general public, however, non-structural projects, such as establishing natural shoreline features,
                                 are less frequently pursued.
                                          Factors which might increase or decrease the affordability or acceptability of shoreline
                                 rehabilitation measures include but are not limited to size and scope of the project, potential
                                 changes in land use, existing associated facilities, current shoreline configuration, land
                                 ownership (private vs public), the presence/absence of contaminated sediments and structural vs
                                 non-structural approaches. Non-structural measures should be implemented over structural
                                 approaches whenever possible.

                        Discussion of non-structural approaches:
                                          The Elizabeth River once possessed a shallow, irregular channelfloor bordered by
                                 broad shoals, marshland and tributary creeks (Nichols & Howard-Strobel, 1991.). Dredging
                                 activities coupled with intense development of the coastal shoreline have combined to deepen the
                                 main channels and bury many former salt marshes and tidal creeks. Shoreline rehabilitation via
                                 non-structural means is recommended as an effective strategy to decrease siltation and
                                 sedimentation originating from shoreline and upland erosion.
                                          Non-structural alternatives include re-establishing natural shoreline features such as
                                 fringing salt marshes, tidal flats and/or shallow water habitats. This is best accomplished by
                                 grading (excavating) adjacent upland areas to appropriate marsh or shallow water habitat
                                 elevations. Although less preferable from an environmental viewpoint, such features may also be
                                 established by select filling of subtidal areas to desired elevations. Costs associated with either
                                 strategy vary and are affected by those factors previously identified. Land ownership, for
                                 example, could significantly increase costs if upland property had to be purchased. Private
                                 land owners, however, might readily participate in demonstration projects if non-structural
                                 measures were designed which halted erosion of their respective properties.
                                          Existing shoreline configuration will play a large role in affordability and acceptability.
                                 Excavation costs are largely determined by the quantity of material required to be removed.
                                 Further, project costs will increase if the excavated material has to be transported off-site and
                                 disposed of. Accordingly, sites which require inininial excavation with available disposal on-site
                                 are preferred

                        Discussion of structural approachen.
                                          In certain cases along the Elizabeth River shoreline, non-structural shoreline
                                 rehabilitation will be difficult to accomplish because of potential conflicts with current land use
                                 practices and associated facilities. This is largely true with commercial properties and less so
                                 with residential lots. In either case, a structural approach may be the only remedy to minimize
                                 shoreline erosion. Commercial properties typically have ship berthing facilities or small vessel
                                 access which may preclude establishing natural shoreline features. Accordingly, it is important
                                 that these sites maintain existing bulkheads and revetments so as to minimize siltation and
                                 sedimentation originating from erosion of their properties. Typical structural alternatives within
                                 the Elizabeth River watershed include revetinents, bulkheads and marsh-toe stabilization.
                                 Revetments and bulkheads are readily accepted by residential and commercial property owners.
                                          From an envirormiental viewpoint, revetments are preferred over bulkheading for
                                 several reasons. Revetments are constructed on a gentle slope within the marine
                                 environment and offer attachment sites and hiding places for estuarine organisms. Wave energy
                                 is more evenly dissipated whereas bulkheads tend to reflect this energy, increasing wave scour
                                 and erosion. The area landward of bulkheads is typically lost to the marine environment because
                                 of backfill elevations. Revetments, conversely, may be installed as low-profile marsh toe
                                 protection or as standard height structures. In either case, erosion is minimized and the
                                 revetment is routinely over-topped by normal or storm tides.







                                                                   Elizabeth River Restoration              31




                              Section 11: Keeping new pollution out of the river
                                                                              Being good stewards



                                              Goak To inspire individual responsibility
                                                                                    and stewardship.

                                              "Our knowledge of the Elizabeth River ecosystem is incomplete,
                                                                                   but some things we know..
                                                                          Reversing the condition of the river
                                                             will be more costly and more difficult tomorrow
                                                                                             than it is today. "
                                                                                    The late Dr. Ray S. Birdsong,
                                                                                          1994 Conunittee Report
                                                                                          Elizabeth River Project




                   Action 5
                           Establish pollution prevention and/or sustainable
                   landscaping practies among 25 percent of residential,
                   commerical and government land users in the watershed by
                   the year 2005, also helping achieve the related goals of
                                      reducing pollutants,
                                      providing economic savings and
                                      enhancing worker and residential safety.

                                   Stepsfor getting there:
                                                                                                         1997
                                                 Step 1: Develop an Elizabeth River Project resource
                                   service and recognition program to increase pollution prevention
                                   accomplishments by owners and occupants of land in the Elizabeth River
                                   watershed. Adapt the resource service from other identified prototypes,
                                   seeking assistance from area programs including VA DEQ Office of
                                   Pollution Prevention, Hampton Roads Sanitation District and locality
                                   stormwater management divisions. Develop a resource pool of local









                                                                                          -go-
                                                         Elizabeth River Restoratio      --32


                         expertise to provide technical assistance to area businesses. Resource
                         service should include:


                                    Establish a clearinghouse for information on specific pollution
                                prevention techniques, categorized in accordance with land uses
                                found in the watershed. Provide Internet access through existing
                                ERP Home Page.

                                -.*- Initiate a campaign to contact land owners and occupants
                                regarding the potential for pollution prevention activities on their
                                properties. Those who appear most likely to benefit should be
                                contacted first. Assist interested parties in identifying techniques
                                applicable to their land use and in planning an implementation
                                strategy.

                                -.*- Present an "award" to participating parties and provide public
                                recognition.

                                    Examples of businesses to be approached might be gas stations
                                and motor vehicle maintenance facilities.


                                                                                             1997
                                Step 2: Encourage watershed residents to adopt sustainable
                         landscaping by providing a "how to" resource and education service and
                         "green award" recognition program and by promoting increased toxics
                         disposal opportunities. The Elizabeth River Project should pursue these
                         efforts in cooperation with: a) the successful Bayscapes program of the
                         Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay; b) existing assistance authorities such as
                         Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA); c) developers, garden
                         shops, hardware stores, environmental consultants, landscapers, master
                         .gardeners and others willing to pool their expertise to develop programs
                         for mutual advantage.
                                The resource and education service should develop expertise and
                         consider sponsoring workshops to promote practices including:
                                4-  use of native and other "beneficial" plants;
                                -*e integrated pest management;
                                    water-wise landscaping;
                                    turf alternatives;
                                4-  rain gardens;
                                    vegetated buffers;
                                    pervious surfaces.
                                Pursue: House Bill 1031, 1996 General Assembly, allows local
                         jurisdictions to provide tax incentives for the use of pervious materials.








                                                                                     Elizabeth River Restoration                          3 3



                                                     Step 3: As part of an integrated demonstration project also
                                            involving other actions, select a neighborhood or neighborhoods for an
                                            awareness campaign to promote sustainable landscaping, pollution
                                            prevention and increased use of "pervious" surfaces. Develop
                                            flenviromental contracts" for waterfront landowners. Conduct "before,"
                                            "during" and "after" surveys of awareness. Set a goal for an environmental
                                            contract signed by 50 percent of waterfront residents in the neighborhood.
                                            Provide workshops and demonstration projects, literature, volunteer water
                                            monitoring. Measurable water quality improvements, increases in native
                                            plant species, increases in pervious surfaces in demo area should then be
                                            used to help promote such activities watershed-wide.


                                                                                                               Background action 5
                         Stressors reduced:
                                  No limit; includes toxics, nutrients, depleted dissolved oxygen, pathogens and particulates.
                         Costs:
                                  Pollution prevention practices that require raw material substitutions can be expensive if it
                                  requires equipment changes and the price of the new material is greater than the existing
                                  material. If the material substitution results in less toxic waste for disposal, this could offset the
                                  increased material cost. Other companies have seen savings when wastes were viewed as
                                  commodities for recycling or reuse. Cost of developing a resource service is estimated at $50,000
                                  per year for staff and overhead.
                         Indicators for measuring success:
                                  Reduction in toxics use and loadings in Elizabeth River. Number of homes, businesses and
                                  government facilities that have instituted pollution prevention measures.

                         Discussion ofpollution prevention service:
                                            A pollution prevention plan is one of the most effective means currently available to
                                  industry to reduce toxic substances entering the environment. Pollution prevention provides
                                  for the potential removal of every hazardous substance entering the Elizabeth River. It also has
                                  been well-documented that pollution prevention is a "win-win" situation for companies that
                                  incorporate it into their operations. Surveys show that, once companies have designed pollution
                                  prevention plans, high percentages of those companies voluntarily implement the plans because
                                  die benefits to the company have become obvious.
                                            The potential effectiveness of this option is substantial. The 1993 Toxics Release
                                  and 1, 167,580 pounds of reported chemicals are being discharged into the air annually. Those
                                  chemicals pose a potential threat to the river and to public health. This risk is compounded by the
                                  danger of spills and accidents during the transportation of toxic substances.
                                            This action consists of a thrce-part program. First, a clearinghouse for infortnation on
                                  specific pollution prevention techniques should be developed and categorized in accordance with
                                  the land uses found in the Watershed. The information could be collected in several ways. A
                                  bibliography of sources of interested parties should be developed and maintained. Hard copies of
                                  documents and other information could be collected in a library for the use of interested parties.
                                  The information should be collected into a home page on the Internet (ERP has a home page in
                                  existence) for access by those landowners with computer capabilities. Such information can then
                                  be easily accessed by any individual wishing to consider pollution prevention for their operations.
                                            Examples of information that should be incorporated into the database include: federal,
                                  state and local laws requiring some form of pollution prevention; results of prior planning cfforts









                                                                                                                     -Job.-
                                                                            Elizabeth River Restmtion                         34


                         and analyses in the Elizabeth River estuary; industry-specific pollution prevention plans prepared
                         by the EPA, the VA DEQ, and other state or federal agencies; pollution prevention information
                         developed by trade associations such as the Chemical Manufacturers' Association; names of
                         organizations that will provide guidance to parties wishing to implement pollution prevention on
                         their property.
                                   Next, a campaign will be initiated to contact all owners and occupants of land in the
                         Watershed regarding the potential for pollution prevention activities on their properties. This is
                         the step that is critical to the success of this option. A single person should be identified to serve
                         as the coordinator of the process of providing guidance to interested landowners and occupants.
                         A list of activities located in the Watershed should be developed and evaluated. Those who
                         appear to be able to benefit most from this guidance should be contacted first.
                                   Third, parties that participate will receive an award for implementing pollution
                         prevention techniques with positive results, possibly with different levels as an individual's
                         pollution prevention efforts increase. The recognition should include advertisement of the
                         successful parties in a public forum.
                                   One employee with minimal computer skills and an understanding of the environmental
                         field should be identified to coordinate this option. The person should have some technical
                         experience and understand the environmental regulatory framework in Virginia. The person
                         should also have good interpersonal skills to enable them to serve as the representative for
                         pollution prevention with the landowners.
                                   It is recommended that the program be established with this employee serving the ERP
                         directly. As the program develops, consideration should be given to cooperation with
                         organizations such as the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, the Hampton Roads Sanitation
                         District, the Hampton Roads Planning Commission, the DEQ and the Chesapeake Bay
                         Foundation. These organizations would already be involved in the program, as they are involved
                         in pollution prevention planning and guidance already and their resources and assistance will be
                         tapped in conducting the project in the Elizabeth River watershed.

               Discussion of sustainable landscaping:

                               'Americans manage 30 million acres of lawn in the U.& and according to the EPA they use
                           approximately 100 million tons offertilizer and more than 80 million pounds ofpesticides each
                                          year ... Residents use 10 times the rate per acre ofpesticides used byfartners... "
                                                                                            - Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.

                                   This action promotes alternative landscaping to reduce runoff pollution through methods
                         including:
                                   0    Use of native plant species, well-adapted to the local climate and soil, reduces the
                                   need for fertilizing, applying pesticides and watering. Available guidance resource:
                                   "Using Beneficial Plants," Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.
                                        Use of integratedpest management strategies reduces the need for pesticides.
                                   Guidance resource: "Integrated Pest Management," Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay."
                                   0    Xeriscaping conserves water through water-wise landscaping and zonal planting
                                   design. Guidance resource: "Bayscaping to Conserve Water," Alliance for the
                                   Chesapeake Bay.
                                        Turfalternatives require less fertilizer, watering and other treatment than the
                                   traditional lawn.
                                   0 Rain gardens are a new concept for alternative stormwater management, combining
                                   grasses, shrubs and trees to simulate a forest environment at the low point of a
                                   developed lot. A Maryland developer is piloting the use of "rain gardens" in an 80 acre
                                   development in Prince George's County. Each rain garden is 300-400 square feet and
                                   designed to require no fertilizers or pesticides. "The settling of sediments into shallow








                                                                                 Elizabeth River Restoration                     3 5


                                           pool areas, the natural processes of plants and microbes, and chemical reactions
                                           occurring in the soil allow the gardens to absorb and purify storinwater runoff. Rain
                                           gardens restore the functions of wooded wetlands removed by land development.
                                           0  "Pervious surfaces" allow rain to seep through, decreasing the amount of
                                           contaminated stormwater running off of "impervious surfaces" and into rivers and bays.
                                           Rain water, if allowed to percolate through the natural soils, will cleanse itself as it
                                           returns to the aquifer. Pervious surfaces also moderate river water temperatures.

                                 Discussion of neighborhood campaign:
                                           This step begins with preparing a comprehensive communication plan targeted at a
                                 variety of audiences in a well defined area along the Elizabeth River (including awareness
                                 surveys at three stages, before, during and after program implementation). The education
                                 campaign should be an integral process to reinforce the benefits of sustainable landscaping,
                                 trying a new product (pervious surface) and reducing polluting behaviors. The campaign would
                                 include neighborhood or single family environmental audits, publications, yard signs,
                                 presentations, exhibits, media relations, videos and signage. To be effective, the educational
                                 campaign must involve more than literature aimed to inform; it should involve extensive
                                 personal contact and building mutually beneficial relationships among affected parties.
                                           Next a workshop should be organized to educate residents and locate receptive property
                                 owners, neighborhoods and influential leaders who will participate in smaller demonstration
                                 projects to build sustainable landscaping and pervious surfaces. Introduce native plant species
                                 with the assistance of Master Gardeners, university biology classes and local landscaping
                                 companies. Include integrated pest management and water wise strategies as well as turf
                                 alternatives and rain gardens.
                                           Third, negotiate with all parties involved to contract landscaping and pervious surface
                                 companies and locate a fimding source. Increase pervious surface on any new public parking lots
                                 and roads developed in the selected area; t1iis will require approval of the locality, the community
                                 and possibly other agencies. Where possible, install smaller roads & parking lots; use pervious
                                 materials (asphalt, concrete, interlocking pavers, plastic grids) and fold these into construction
                                 plan approval & inspections by the city, Design a pilot project on an entire neighborhood street
                                 with a discernible outfall to facilitate water monitoring. Include neighborhood cleanups to
                                 remove litter in waterways.
                                           Additionally, a volunteer monitoring campaign will be needed to measure water quality.








                        Action 6
                                 Reduce pollution from stormwater runoff to the
                        maximum practical extent, achieving this in part through related
                        actions to increase vegetated and wetlands areas, decrease
                        impervious surfaces, and increase pollution prevention
                        achievements.








                                                        Elizabeth River Restoration               3 6


                      Steps for gelfing there:

                                                                                      1996-2010
                              Step 1: Establish on-going Elizabeth River Project working
                      relationships with the cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake and
                      Virginia Beach in order to provide the public support and the public-private
                      resources and partnerships needed to achieve the following objectives:

                              **e Increase public acceptability of city stormwater pollution
                              reduction programs and for the active use of city resources to
                              implement pollution management.

                              I.- Achieve full, effective implementation of the extensive
                              stormwater pollution controls already in place or proposed by the
                              cities, with recognition that intended improvements are likely to
                              remain only partially realized without greater public awareness and
                              support. In particular, promote full implementation of city permits
                              for stormwater management.

                              1- Promote regional adoption of innovative, cost-effective
                              stormwater pollution control techniques to retrofit outmoded
                              stormwater systems in devloped areas. As public support increases,
                              work in cooperation with the cities to consider ambitious
                              measurable objectives for replacing significant amounts of
                              outmoded city stormwater systems by 2010. Actively pursue
                              opportunities to assist through:
                                      - research of promising, cost-effective retrofit techniques
                                      specific to the Elizabeth River, including exploring costs and
                                      effectiveness of retrofitting the watershed's extensive
                                      network of ditches (now used to drain sites and control
                                      flooding);
                                      - identification of potential sites for demonstrating
                                      promising retrofit techniques, including exploring the
                                      potential for retrofits at highly urbanized existing lakes (see
                                      Portsmouth chart);
                                      - exploration and development of broad-based, public and
                                      private funding for such techniques, including exploring
                                      grants and donated private assistance.

                              e.- Promote adoption of uniform standards for implementation of
                              Best Management Practices for new development and
                              re-development within the watershed.








                                                                       Flizabeth River Restoration               37


                                             4- Promote regional land use planning and practices within the
                                             watershed to reduce the development of impervious areas. Such
                                             land use planning may involve increasing pedestrian and bikeway
                                             access to activity centers, zoning amendments to allow centralized
                                             community services, shared parking for compatible businesses,
                                             cluster developments, and alternative surfaces for overflow parking
                                             areas.


                                             Step 2: Promote the development of a voluntary program
                                     providing incentives for industrial and commercial facilities to capture and
                                     treat the first flush of their stormwater (originally a separate action). VA
                                     DEQ and area businesses are key implementation players. Recognizing that
                                     the first flush often contains the highest level of pollutants, objectives
                                     include:


                                                 4.* Developing incentives, such as matching private or public
                                             funds and public recognition, for engineering and construction of
                                             techniques to capture the first flush. Engineering solutions would
                                             also provide the means for this water to be treated and discharged.

                                                 4- Focusing assistance efforts on industrial and commercial
                                             facilities whose stormwater runs directly into the river with little
                                             opportunity for soil infiltration.

                                             Step 3: Explore the effectiveness of more frequent
                                     street-sweeping by municipalities. Street-sweeping removes contaminated
                                     soil and debris before it can be washed into the river.



                                                                                             Background action 6
                     Problem addressed:
                             As much as 90 percent of new pollution entering the Elizabeth River today arrives in runoff from
                             parking lots, lawns and other industrial and residential surfaces. An aging system of stormwater
                             drains rushes a toxic soup of oils, fertilizers, pesticides and metals directly into the river.

                     Discussion of step 1:
                                     Stormwater runoff contributes 88 percent of the metal, and 99 percent of the
                             polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon loadings to the river (URS 1995). Meanwhile, the
                             greatest land use in the Elizabeth River watershed is single-family residential. This use
                             has 25 percent imperviousness, referring to the amount of hard surface unable to absorb
                             runoff. Industrial areas, concentrated along the riverbank, are typically 75 percent
                             impervious. Impervious surfaces accumulate pollutants from incomplete combustion of
                             fossil fuels, metal alloy corrosion, automobiles, pesticide use, industrial manufacturing
                             and atmospheric deposition. During storms these accumulated pollutants are washed
                             into the intricate system of storm drains that discharge into the Elizabeth River.
                             Residential areas in the watershed are often intensely managed with inputs of water,








                                                              Efiz eth River Restor ion                38


                   fertilizer and pesticides. Contaminants from lawns, golf courses and managed landscapes
                   also make their way into the river.
                           Reducing and managing non-point source pollution is the biggest challenge to
                   reducing new pollutants into the Elizabeth Riuer. Stormwater management is essential
                   to addressing non-point source pollution in conjunction with pollution prevention.
                           Stormwater management to control the quantity and quality of stormwater
                   runoff is achieved through best management practices (BMPs). BMPs are structural and
                   nonstructural measures to reduce the pollutants available for transport by rainfA or
                   reduce the amount of pollutants in the runoff before it is discharged to a surface water
                   body. Effective BMPs include pond systems, wetland systems, infiltrations systems and
                   filtering systems. Table 1 compares features of some BMP options. BMPs are currently
                   required for new development and redevelopment in Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas
                   (Virginia Beach requires BMPs for all new development). However, the majority of the
                   watershed was developed prior to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and stormwater
                   enters the waterways untreated. BMP "retrofits!' are structures or a series of structures
                   designed to mitigate the detrimental affect of human activity from development in an
                   urban watershed. Retrofits are designed to remediate the affect of altered hydrology,
                   reduce pollutants to receiving waters, and enhance aquatic habitat.
                           The cities of Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach and Norfolk have
                   stormwater management programs as part of their Virginia Pollution Discharge
                   Elimination System (VPDES) municipal permit applications. The four primary municipal
                   stormwater pollutant sources are: runoff from commercial and residential areas; illicit
                   discharges and improper disposal to the storm sewer system; runoff from waste disposal
                   and industrial facilities, and runofffrom construction sites. The VPDES program
                   requires that municipalities implement a storinwater management program to control
                   runoff from construction sites, detect and effininate illicit discharges, prevent improper
                   disposal into storm drain systems, and identify structural control measures. Permits
                   applications have been submitted, and permits are scheduled for issue early this year.
                   Each city has a different program, and they are at different stages of implementation.
                   Funding of stormwater programs (Chesapeake Ray Preservation Act, Sediment &
                   Erosion Control, Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) is the responsibility of
                   municipal government, and day-to-day implementation falls on municipal staff. The
                   Hampton Roads Planning District Commission provides technical support to localities for
                   stormwater programs and coordinates regional activities.
                           One of the major obstacles to non-point source pollution prevention and
                   stormwater management is a general misunderstanding of the problem. Most of the
                   public is not aware that 90 percent of water pollution is from non-point sources. A
                   negative attitude towards environmental issues is prevalent among some sectors of the
                   community. Some vocal business community groups object to the stormwater fee and
                   costs of compliance with environmental regulations. Due to competing demands, funding
                   and support are not appropriated by decisioninakers to retrofit stormwater controls in
                   previously developed areas. Funds raised through the stormwater fee are currently
                   being used for flood control projects, street cleaning, other activities that the cities always
                   conducted from the general fund. The public assumes that because they are paying for
                   stormwater management, the problem is being addressed. Without a good
                   understanding of non-point source pollution and the methods to control it, there has been
                   little pressure on decisioninakers to address the problem.
                           (For a full discussion of this action, see the discussion paper,
                   Non-Point Source Pollution Management Option, available separately).


                   Discussion of needfor urban retrofas:




                                                                           Elizabeth 1UYer Restoration _19@ 39

                                       Traditional stormwater programs primarily address new development. There is
                               a great need to retrofit stormwater systems in developed areas. Residential and
                               commercial sources of runoff should be targets for demonstration projects. The
                               Hampton Roads Planning District Commission is preparing a guidance document for
                               BMP retrofit siting as part of the regions tributary strategy project to reduce nutrients in
                               the Chesapeake Bay.


                               Discussion of needfor ditch retrofits.
                                       The region has an extensive network of ditches designed to drain sites and
                               control flooding. The concept of improving the water quality function of ditches needs to
                               be explored. An infiltration trench beneath a ditch would permit water to be processed
                               through the soil and recharge the groundwater. Following is a list of potential retrofit
                               sites:
                                            BMP construction at upstream end of road culverts
                                            BMP construction at storm drainage pipe outfalls,
                                            Small instream. practices in open channels
                                            BMP measures at the edges of large parking areas.
                                            BMP construction within highway rights-of-way.

                               Discussion of the potentialfor lake retrofas:
                                       Opporttmities exist to improve the water quality function of existing lakes in the
                               watershed through retrofitting and maintenance. The drainage area to the Eastern
                               Branch of the Elizabeth River within Virginia Beach is 8,834 acres. The existing land use
                               is highly urbanized throughout most of the drainage area, and therefore only a small
                               percentage of the total area is available for future development. A pilot project on a lake
                               that includes retrofits, pollution prevention measures, and other management options
                               may improve the potential of bringing about measurable improvement within five years.
                               Retrofitting existing ponds cost $200,000 to $600,000 for small structures, and $2 million
                               to $3 million for large lakes. Norfolk plans to dredge and enhance a one-acre pond at an
                               estimated cost of $200,000. This project is a priority because the condition of the pond is
                               considered a public nuisance. The residents have demanded that the city restore the
                               pond for aesthetic reasons.

                      Discussion of step 2:
                                         The purpose of this action is to provide site engineering and construction of holding
                               vessels or lagoons designed to capture thefirstflush of stormwater; also to provide means by
                               which the water may be treated and discharged. Industrial process and stormwater discharges
                               are minor point source stressors in the Elizabeth River Watershed, contributing to 7.4% of the
                               total suspended solids load and 6.9% of the biological oxygen demand. However, these facilities
                               contribute significantly to solids and oil and grease loads and the reductions made on a site by
                               site basis with affordable engineered systems would contribute to a cleaner Elizabeth River.
                                       The first flush of storm water, defined as the volume of runoff discharged in the time
                               required for runoff to flow from the most remote section of the site to the discharge point during
                               a precipitation event, typically contains a higher load of contaminants than later discharges from
                               the same rainfall. The major accumulation areas of conventional and toxic pollutants in
                               industrial settings are: parking lots, loading docks, and building roof tops. These areas generally
                               collect sediment, metals, oils, grease, surface spill residuals, and on-site and off-site stack
                               emission particulates in between rainfall events.
                                       Efforts should focus on facilities whose stormwater runs directly into the river with little
                               opportunity for soil infiltration. We suggest that matching private or public funds be provided
                               for engineering/implementation on a site by site basis. Targeting of facilities would be made




                                                                F,1*7abeth River Restoration-*, 40

                     through stormwatcr records kept by the VA DEQ. After contacting the industrial/commercial
                     entities with significant identified stormwater discharges, coalitions of businesses could be
                     formed working together toward this goal. Incentives for businesses include public attention for
                     good stewardship and corporate responsibility.
                             Based on the research of the potential effectiveness of first flush storinwater capture/
                     treatment we conclude that this option in selective cases holds promise for conventional pollutant
                     reductions. However, we note that not all. industry could economically comply with this measure
                     for several reasons including size of facility, inability to economically route and capture
                     stormwater, lack of space for vessels or retention pond(s). However, many smaller industries,
                     especially those with parking lots, stock yard areas, or other significant open air work areas can
                     provide first flush capture/treatment for a relatively low cost.
                             Maximum effectiveness, affordability and acceptability of this option is dependent upon
                     the involvement of industry to seek its own solutions, given what makes sense for each property.
                     It also requires environmental groups that are willing to provide funding for recommended
                     control measures demonstrating the desire to work with industry towards this goal. And lastly, it
                     requires regulatory agencies that reinforce voluntary measures to improve environmental
                     controls, by creatively overcoming regulatory hurdles to this progress.
                             (A fuller discussion of "first flush" treatment is available separately in the report
                     "Preliminary Feasibility Study of Stormwater Discharge Pretreatment from Industrial
                     Facilities on the Elizabeth River." )




                                                    Cost Estimates

                            BMP Improvements
                           Marsh establishment                             $100,0004200,000

                           Lake enhancements                               $100,0004300,000

                           Disposal fee for 23,000 tons of dredged         $929,880
                           material to enlarge lake @$41/ton
                           BMP Structural improvements                     $50,0004100,000

                           Sand filter                                     $50,000

                           BMP Maintenance

                           Cleaning                                        $1,000
                           Repair pipes, inlets, or outlets                $1,000 - $6,000
                           Remove vegetation                               $2,500
                           Erosion control/w riprap                        $3,500
                           Erosion control/w matting                       $2,000

                          'Norfolk Stormwater Management Plan







                                                                    Fli7abeth River Rest ration              41



                                                              Table 4-7
                                              EXISTING PORTSMOUTH LAKES

                                                                                                  Surface Area
                            Name                   Location                    Owner                  (acres)

                     Lake Armistead          Armistead Forest        Individual lot owners              0.6
                                                                     and Quadrangle Assoc.
                     Rivershore Road         North Churchland        Rdovit Corp                        9.5
                     Borrow Pit

                     Lake Sweetbriar         Sweetbriar              Individual lot owners              4.0

                     Horseshoe Lake          Sterling Point          Single ownership,                  5.8
                                                                     owner unknown

                     Lake Jean               Sterling Point          George T. McLean (as               9.8
                                                                     per original subdivision
                                                                     plat), at present
                                                                     uncertain

                     Lake Collins            Collinswood             Howard and Patricia                2.9
                                                                     Hudson

                                 Lake        Longpoint               Individual lot owners;             4.7
                                             Subdivision             most recent lake in the
                                                                     city

                     Lake Willis             Sweetbriar              Individual lot owners              0.9

                     Lake Pam                North Park Manor        Individual lot owners              0.8

                     Misc. Lake              Sterling Point,         Individual lot owners              0.3
                                             Verne & Garner
                                             Avenue

                     Lake Kingman            West Norfolk            Individual property           20.3 (tidal)
                                                                     owners

                     Lake Cavalier           Cavalier Manor          Bold Corp. and some                78.2
                                                                     individual lot owners

                     Green Lake              Cedar Point             Individual lot owners              29.5
                   Fooint






                     Peachtree Lake          Peachtree               Responsibility of                  2.0
                                             neighborhood, on        homeowner's
                                             common land as          association
                                             part of PUD           I                            I







                                                                 Elizabeth River -94estoration            42





                 Action 7
                        Identify and correct inadequate sanitary collection
                 systems, for the purpose of reducing human health risks and
                 ecological risks from fecal coliform bacteria in the Elizabeth
                 River.


                                Stepsfor getting there.
                                                                                              1996-2000
                                        Step 1: Include boaters and marinas in a diverse task force
                                possibly sponsored by the Virginia Department of Health to develop an
                                effective program for increasing the use of sewage pump-out facilities by
                                recreational boaters. Recommendations of the task force should take into
                                account:


                                        4- Examination of other successful programs including: "Pump,
                                        Don't Dump" program of the State of Maryland; and 1994 VA
                                        Department of Health program providing no-charge, shore-based,
                                        portable pump-out facilities for boaters on the Lynnhaven River.

                                            Sound data on the extent and nature of the problem, including
                                        further attempts to identify and quantify the major sources of fecal
                                        coliform bacteria in the Elizabeth River.


                                Recommendations should include thefollowing program components:

                                        4- Effective strategies for reducing sewage dumped by recreational
                                        boaters;

                                           Education and incentive components and identification of
                                        feasible funding sources;

                                        4.- Preliminary identification of other major sources of fecal
                                        coliform bacteria (such as inadequate septic tanks) in the Elizabeth
                                        River and .


                                        Step 2: Further identify the major sources of sewage discharges
                                and develop initiatives to address them.







                                                                                   Flizabeth River RestQratiQn                         43


                                                    Step 3: Build public support for the municipalities in their
                                           development of strategies and incentives for home and business owners to
                                           repair leaks in "lateral" sewage lines, or the lines running from a house or
                                           business to the curb. These lines are generally the responsibility of the
                                           property owner and, as such, pose a missing link in efforts to maintain
                                           adequate human sewage collection.


                                                                                                            Background action 7
                        Problem addressed:
                                  Unsanitary conditions related to human and animal sewage have been a significant problem in
                                  the Elizabeth River since early in the century. The Department of Health, Division of Shellfish
                                  Sanitation has condemned shellfish beds in the Elizabeth River for decades based on sanitary
                                  surveys. Fecal coliform counts, the typical method for determining the presence of fecal matter,
                                  are one indicator used by the Health Department to identify stressed sliellfish beds.
                        Stressors reduced:
                                  Fecal coliform, BOD, nutrients, toxics, organics, oil and grease, heavy metals.
                        Indicators for success:
                                  Fecal coliform counts.
                        Costs:
                                  A portable pump-out program on the Lynnhaven River cost about $45,000. Repair of sewer lines
                                  averages $100 per linear foot.

                        Discussion of increased use ofpunip-outfacifities:
                                           The VA Dept. of Health requires that all marinas with three or more slips have on-shore
                                  toilets, sewage dump stations, and pump-out facilities. Exceptions can be granted for a
                                  11 cooperative" where one marina is the source of pump out facilities for the entire group. All new
                                  marinas must have a certificate from the health department for a pump out facility plan before a
                                  permit for construction will be granted by the VA Marine Resources Commission. Backfitting
                                  marinas with these facilities pose a different problem. Compliance with the on-shore toilet
                                  requirement is excellent. However, compliance decreases with sewage dump stations to
                                  approximately 50-50 for pump out facilities. The cost of installation of these facilities belongs to
                                  the marina owner, who tries to rccoup with fees for use of the facilities. Some relief in the form
                                  of low-cost loans may be available from the US Fish and Wildlife Service through the Clean
                                  Vessel Act. This program is funded through taxes on fishing equipment and gas.
                                           The Elizabeth River is one of several major waterways in Hampton Roads used
                                  significantly by the region's nearly 25,000 registered recreational boats. The Elizabeth River is
                                  an integral part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. During a five-month period in 1993,
                                  5,358 yachts and 2,614 small boats traveled through the locks at Great Bridge and Deep Creek.
                                           A boater education campaign is needed in cooperation with the health department and
                                  others. In addition, funding and feasibility should be explored for more direct programs such as a
                                  portable pump out facility. In 1994, the health department used a grant from the Near Coastal
                                  Water Fund to establish a shore-based portable pump out facility on the Lynnhaven River. Old
                                  Dominion University environmental health students ran the operation. According to the health
                                  department, the program was very popular. The cost for subsequent use of the equipment would
                                  be less as start-up costs are already paid.

                                  Discussion of step 2:









                                                                                                                              Aft-

                                                                                  Elizabeth River RestoratiQn                     , 44


                                        Sewage from recreational boating is only one source of sewage discharge and high fecal
                               coliform counts in the river. Efforts should be made to identify the major sources. Once these are
                               known, programs should be adopted to address them.

                               Discussion of step 3:
                                        Maintenance of the sanitary sewer system can be divided into several categories
                               depending upon who is responsible for the upkeep. Home owners, large industries such as the
                               Navy, and business owners are responsible for the system until it ties into the part of the system
                               controlled by the municipality. The individual municipality maintains the lines until they
                               connect with the lines maintained by the sewer authority. According to the HRSD, over $60M
                               has been spent over the last 10 years by the eleven municipalities in the Tidewater area on their
                               sewer lines. HRSD alone has spent $19M during that time to effect repairs and upgrades to their
                               sewer lines. URS Consultants report that of the $9M dollars spent by the City of Norfolk in 1991
                               on sewer line rehabilitation 13.6 percent ($1.2M) was spent on I I projects upgrading private
                               laterals. This is a new program whereby the City of Norfolk is upgrading private laterals which
                               are in the public right of way. The four municipalities in the watershed have had active programs
                               to include renewal of lines, slip lining, in situ repairs since the 1980s.
                                        According to URS Consultants, the input from private systems including business and
                               home laterals can be greater than from the publicly owned collection systems. A typical 1,500
                               square foot house may contribute 100 gallons per day inflow during a normal year of 40 inches
                               of rainfall. Disconnection of downspouts, yard drains and foundation drains are some of the
                               techniques that can be used to reduce inflow.



                          Watorbody    SWIM             Swbrunable Goils      rishfiblo (Joids       Watcr Quility
                                       Condomnallons                          Suppoitcd?
                          I            Entire           Fully                 Nonsupported           Limited
                          2            Entire           Fully                 Nonsupported           Limited
                          3            N/A              Fully                 Fully       -          N/A
                          4            Entire           Fully 73%             Nonsupported           Limited
                                                        Nonsupported
                                                        27%
                          5            Entire           Fully                 Nonsupported           Limited
                          6            Entire           Fully                 Nonsupported           Limited
                          7            Entire           Fully                 Nonsupported           Limited
                          8            Entire           Fully                 Nonsupported           Limited
                                                        Partial               Partial                Limited
                                       N/A
                                                        Fully
                          10           Entire                                 Partial                Limited
                          Table I      COMPARISON OF THE WATERBODIES WITHIN THE ELIZABETH
                                                                   RIVE R WATE RSHI 0



                               Key: This table compares ten waterbodies of the Elizabeth River described below. The second
                               column identifies the extent of shellfish condemnations within the watrebody. If the entire
                               waterbody is identified as a shellfish condemnation area, the Virginia Department of Health
                               (VDH) prohibits any person, firm, or corporation from aking shellfish in this area for any reason.








                                                                               Elizabeth River Restoration                     45




                                         1 - Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River - Great Bridge Waterbody - 1. 19 square
                                miles (762) acres) extend from the Army Corps of Engineers' locks near Oak Grove to the
                                confluence of Jones and Paradise Creeks including the upper reaches of the Southern Branch
                                mainstem, Deep Creek, Mains Creek and New Mill Creek.
                                         2 - Southern Branch Elizabeth River - Naval Shipyard Waterbody -.067 square
                                mile (429 acres) extend from Jones and Paradise Creeks to the Downtown Tunnel (Interstate 264)
                                including Jones, Paradise, Scuffleton, St. Julian and Gilligan Creeks.
                                         3 - Lake Taylor Waterbody - located north of the Elizabeth River's Eastern Branch
                                including the lake's watershed to the dam at the headwaters of broad creek.
                                         4 - Eastern Branch Elizabeth River Waterbody - 1. 84 square miles (1, 178 acres)
                                begin in western Virginia Beach and continues westward to its confluence with the Elizabeth
                                River mainstem and Southern Branch including Kings Creek, Broad Creek, Indian River, Mosley
                                Creek, Steamboat Creek and Pescara Creek.
                                         5 - Elizabeth River - Berkley Waterbody - 0.25 square miles (160 acres) extend from
                                Inerstate 264 crossing downstream to the point where the southern and eastern Branches
                                converge in the mainstem Elizabeth River and continuing eastward into the Eastern Branch
                                upstream tot lie Berkley Bridge (Route 460) crossing.
                                         6 - Western Branch Elizabeth River Waterbody - 1. 17 square miles (1,094 acres)
                                begin at Pinner and Lovett's Points on the mainstem of the Elizabeth River and extend in a
                                southwesterly direction to its headwaters in Portsmouth including Lilly Creek, Hull Creek,
                                Baines Creek, Stems Creek, Drum Point Creek, Bailey Creek and Goose Creek.
                                         7 - Elizabeth River - Lambert's Point Waterbody - 2.82 square miles (1,804 acres)
                                encompassing the mainstem and tributaries from the divergence of the Eastern and Southern
                                Branches to an imaginary line drawn from the northeast comer of Craney Island Fuel Depot to
                                Pier 6 at Lambert's Point including Craney Island Creek, Smith Creek and Scott Creek.
                                         8 - Lafayette River Waterbody - 2.44 square miles (1,562 acres) encompassing the
                                mainstem and tributaries from its headwaters to its confluence with the Elizabeth River including
                                Knitting Mill Creek and Wayne Creek.
                                         9 - Masons Creek Waterbody - 0.47 square miles (301 acres) on die southern shore of
                                the Willoughby Bay including the mainstem and tributaries from its headwaters to the confluence
                                with Willoughby Bay.
                                         10 - Elizabeth River - Craney Island Waterbody - 11.07 square miles (7,085 acres)
                                encompassing an area from an imaginary line drawn from the northeast comer of Craney Island
                                to Pier 6 at Lambert's Point and to the confluence with Hampton Roads including the Elizabeth
                                River mainstem, Willoughby Bay and that portion of Hampton Roads Harbor adjacent to the
                                Norfolk Naval Base.








                                                                      Elizabeth River Restoration                46





                  Action 8
                          Reduce TBT to non-toxic levels in the Elizabeth River
                  waters and sediment, while enhancing the opportunity for
                  continued competiveness of Virginia's shipping, shipbuilding and
                  other businesses.


                                          Stepsfor geuing there:
                                                                                                    1996-1997
                                          Step 1: Initiate aggressive action seeking the establishment of a
                                  national ban on the use of TBT on paints and all water-going vessels.
                                           Step 2: Support the establishment of an international ban on the
                                  use of TBT paints on all water-going vessels.
                                          Step 3: Maintain Virginia's progress toward reducing the sources
                                  of TBT by continuing current TBT regulations.
                                          Step 4: Continue to conduct further study of the nature of the
                                  TBT problem at the local level, provided funding for such studies is found.
                                  Further study could provide better understanding, for instance, of the
                                  actual levels of release from the shipyards and newly painted hulls during
                                  painting events and subsequent effects on ambient levels.


                                                                                            Background action 8
                  Problem addressed:
                          Tributyltin (TBT) is a pesticide used in antifoulant paints to protect boat hulls from barnacles and
                          algae. TBT compounds are higlily toxic to aquatic life and are capable of causing adverse
                          biological effects at extremely low levels.
                  Stressors reduced:
                          TBT.
                  Indicators for success:
                          Levels of TBT toxic impacts in the Elizabeth River.
                  Costs:
                          In a recent proposal developed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in conjunction with
                          the Department of Environmental Quality to collect necessary baseline information concerning
                          TBT in the water column and to monitor the effect of a single ship-painting event on aqueous
                          TBT concentrations, the estimated study cost was $70,000 to $ 100,000.

                  Discussion of TBT action
                                  Virginia has taken the lead in reducing sources of TBT. The Watershed Action Team
                          supports this progress. The need now is to actively promote national and international bans on
                          TBT in order to provide a fair playing field for Virginia ship repair facilities as they compete
                          with markets outside Virginia.







                                                                                Elizabeth River Restordion                      47


                                          Available monitoring data show that water column concentrations of TBT in the
                                 Elizabeth River are generally low compared to marina areas and average in the 10-20 ng/L
                                 range. Mean concentrations are generally highest near the confluence of the southern and
                                 eastern branches of the river. Concentrations throughout the Elizabeth River, while small
                                 compared to those observed near marinas, exceed the Virginia standard for TBT.
                                          The Elizabeth River estuary has seen little decline in TBT concentration since the
                                 imposition of the partial ban required by the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988.
                                 This is in stark contrast to the situation near many marinas where there has been a clear decline
                                 in TBT concentrations since the ban (Huggett, 1992). The major source of TBT near marinas is
                                 believed to have been TBT-containing paints on small hulls and uncontrolled application
                                 whereas different sources dominate in the Elizabeth River.
                                          TBT in the water column of the Elizabefli River may originate from multiple sources:
                                     ï¿½    leachate from merchant and cruise ships entering the river,
                                     ï¿½    outfall from s1iipyards wl-dch strip hulls and apply T13T-containing paint under
                                     regulatory requirements for BMP,
                                     ï¿½    desorption from contaminated sediments and paint chips,
                                     ï¿½    or, in rare cases, input from other industrial sources.
                                          Occasionally very elevated TBT concentrations have been measured locally in the
                                 Elizabeth River. These events are believed to reflect localized transient TBT inputs perhaps
                                 resulting from ship-painting events or the passage of a TBT-coated ship. Monitoring of TBT
                                 inputs in New York Harbor have shown very high TBT concentrations (@tg/l, concentrations) in
                                 the vicinity of drydocks during ship maintenance and painting and near newly-painted ships as
                                 they leave the drydock (Unger 1993). Monitoring studies in the Elizabeth River have not been
                                 designed to identify and quantify inputs in this way, leading to substantial uncertainty about the
                                 source of TBT during the observed events.






                        Action 9
                                 Promote mass transit and alternate transportation, based
                        on a recognition of automotive usage as a major source of
                        pollution in the Elizabeth River.

                                          Stepsfor gefling there:

                                                   Step 1: Form a mass transit and alternate transportation team of
                                          the Elizabeth River Project to pursue the following objectives:

                                                       Identify ways to increase support for and effectiveness of
                                                   established organizations already actively promoting mass transit
                                                   and alternate transportation;

                                                       Alert Elizabeth River Project members and leadership of
                                                   opportunities to provide needed support for specific initiatives, and







                                                                                   Elizabeth River Restoratim                       -4 B_


                                                  assist them in responding to these opportunities in a timely and
                                                  informed manner;

                                                  0.- Promote public understanding of the link between use of cars
                                                  and trucks and water quality degradation in the Elizabeth River.
                                                  Explore forming a speakers bureau for this topic;

                                                  + Explore whether any direct initiatives, such as a biking and
                                                  walking path, are within the scope of the Elizabeth River Project to
                                                  implement.


                                                                                                             Background action 9
                     Problem addressed:
                               Cars and trucks are a major source of pollution in the Elizabeth River through air emissions and
                               through metals and oils washed off the roads with the rain. A recent EPA study indicated that air
                               emissions are the greatest single source of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and mercury in the
                               Chesapeake Bay (VA Pilot, April 26, 1994). In the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source
                               Control Program (Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1992), automobiles were found to be the
                               leading source of metals of concern (cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc) in the Lower San
                               Francisco Bay.
                     Stessors reduced:
                               Zinc, copper, cadmium, chromium, iron, oil and grease and air emissions causing acid rain.
                     Indicators for success:
                               Increases in funding and ridership of mass transit; decrease in short trips by automobiles.

                     Discussion of inass transit
                                         The Norfolk Virginia Beach Corridor Major Investment Study (TRT, on-going)
                               indicates that traffic volumes on Route 44 and 1-64 are expected to increase by 87-95% by the
                               year 2015 if we do nothing. Since the "do nothing7 alternative will jeopardize Hampton Roads
                               Air Quality Attainment Standard, and because it is difficult to continue to widen roads that have
                               already reached their limit, light rail and alternate transportation alternatives are being studied to
                               avoid the consequences of non-attainment.
                                         Additional reductions of oil and grease will also be realized. Also, a reduction of
                               impervious areas will help to reduce the conveyance of these pollutants to the river. Light rail
                               and alternate transportation also improve the quality of life in the community. Benefits of
                               regular exercise have been extensively documented. Light rail will provide additional access to
                               many Hampton Roads residents, will improve air quality, and will reduce trafflic congestion.
                                         The question is: Will it work? Two cities with higl-dy successful light rail systems are
                               St. Louis, @&ssouri and San Diego, CA. Both experienced an economic boon in their downtown
                               centers as a result of the light rail system. In the first year of operation in St. Louis,
                               30,000-40,000 passengers per day rode the light rail. This was three times more than forecasted.
                               For 80% of the riders, this was their first time they ever commuted by rail. And ridersi-dp on the
                               bus system increased during the same period.
                                         The key to successful implementation of this option is to link automobile and truck
                               usage to water quality degradation. The link between automobile usage and air quality is well
                               known and generally accepted by die public. However, the link between automobile and truck
                               usage and water quality is not well known, though its significance is just as great. (Further
                               development of this action is provided in the discussion paper on mass transit and alternate
                               transportation, available separately).







                                                                      Elizabeth River Restoration               49






                     Action 10
                             Enhance compliance with existing regulations.

                                     Steps for getting there:
                                                                                                    1996-2010
                                            Step 1: Support adequate staffing and other resources needed to
                                     implement existing regulations in a manner effective for reducing toxics and
                                     other pollutants in the Elizabeth River. Regulations identified as important
                                     to achieving these ends include but are not limited to:
                                                Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act;
                                            44- Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations;
                                            4- VA Pollutant Discharge Regulations.

                                            Step 2: The Elizabeth River Project should explore interest and
                                     support among business, citizen and government concerns for a "blue
                                     ribbon panel" of those interests to develop a more comprehensive approach
                                     to enhancing regulatory compliance at the local level. The panel might
                                     address issues including:

                                            + To what degree is the implementation of existing regulations
                                            producing the results intended by the regulations? What changes in
                                            implementation may be needed to increase effectiveness, including
                                            cost-effectiveness?


                                            44- To what degree is compliance enhanced through
                                            understandable, consistently applied implementation? Where are
                                            changes needed to enhance compliance? What conflicts between
                                            regulations, if any, need to be eliminated?

                                            4- Is there effective management of compliance records and other
                                            compliance data?

                                            + What resource levels, including staffing, are needed to enhance
                                            compliance, including to provide for timely and accurate review of
                                            development plans and permit applications and for adequate project
                                            inspections?







                                                                              Elizabeth River Resto ion                        50


                                                    Are current education and incentive efforts sufficient to
                                               encourage voluntary compliance? If not, what more is needed?

                                               Step 3: Develop an on-going relationship with regulatory
                                       agencies to continue to identify resource, education, incentives and other
                                       needs for effective compliance and to provide public support for meeting
                                       those needs.



                                                                                                     Background action 10
                    Problems addressed:
                              Regulations exist which, effectively implemented, would significantly improve the ecological
                              health of the Elizabeth river, Compliance is diminished by a number of factors including lack of
                              regulatory resources, lack of public education and incentives and inconsistent, illogical or
                              otherwise ineffective implementation practices.
                    Stessors reduced:
                              Dissolved oxygen, nutrients, particulates, pathogens and toxics; loss of habitat and more.
                    Costs:
                              The estimated cost for this recommendation was based on each city adding one additional staff
                              person and the Tidewater regional DEQ office adding two additional staff for enhancing
                              compliance. The total cost is estimated at $250,000 to $300,000 per year.
                    Indicators for success:
                              Effectiveness of existing regulations in achieving intended results.

                    Discussion of step I and 2:
                                       A key element in the strategy to improve the Elizabeth River should be timely and
                              effective compliance with existing regulations. The effectiveness of these regulations is
                              diminished to the degree that they are not fidly understood and administered in a focused and
                              coordinated manner aimed at enhancing water quality. Support for adequate funding to carry out
                              the mandates is essential.
                                       Improving enforcement of regulations where necessary to acl-deve program goals is
                              recommended as one element of a broad approach including development of reasonable and
                              understandable regulations and permit requirements and consistent application of those
                              requirements to all projects. Timely and accurate review of development plans and permit
                              applications, including development of the permits themselves, is also needed. Education and
                              public information should be part of this comprehensive approach, along with more frequent
                              project inspections and development of appropriate incentives to encourage voluntary
                              compliance.
                                       Program staff generally indicate that fair and consistent application of program
                              requirements to all projects will result in improved compliance. Educational activities may
                              reduce or eliminate the need for many enforcement actions through better understanding of
                              programs and through encouragement of voluntary actions.
                                       Understandable and reasonable regulations, which are consistent with each other, also
                              lead to improved compliance. Some elements of existing programs conflict with each other. For
                              example, current stormwater management regulations under the state and Chesapeake Bay
                              Programs entail different thresholds and design criteria. Enforcement is difficult because of these
                              differences. In other cases, strict enforcement of one program may cause a violation of another
                              program or at least make compliance with the other program more difficult
                                       Program staff also generally indicate that additional staff resources are needed to ensure







                                                                               Elizabeth River Restor ion                     -51


                              that effective permits and plans are developed and approved in an expeditious fashion and that
                              subsequent inspections are accomplished on a regular basis.
                                       In the context of a comprehensive program designed to achieve compliance,
                              enforcement of existing regulations would appear to be effective, affordable and generally
                              acceptable to the community. If viewed in isolation, enforcement is likely to be less than
                              generally acceptable to the community, may be unaffordable at times of budget constraints and
                              will not be as effective as the comprehensive approach.

                     Discussion of step 3:
                                       The issues of affordability and acceptability must be framed in the context of the origin
                              of the existing regulations. Most of the mandates were not initiated at the local level, yet local
                              governments must shoulder the primary responsibilities associated with implementing these
                              regulations. Program costs oftentimes fall directly on residents and businesses of a locality in the
                              form of stormwater charges, permit fees and fines. Some local political leaders have expressed
                              their concern over these costs, especially in light of the lack of clarity regarding the expected
                              benefits of the programs.
                                       To have a sustained, effective program to improve the water quality of the Elizabeth
                              River, acceptance of the existing regulations is essential. Local residents and political leaders
                              must have a clear understanding of the intent of the mandates and the anticipated benefits that
                              are expected to be achieved. It is desirable to involve citizen and volunteer groups in the
                              compliance program to achieve broad-based support.
                                       Information needs to be compiled regarding the current status of compliance
                              monitoring. This effort would include the following tasks: develop understanding of current
                              level of regulatory compliance, identify best means for enhancement, identify amount of funding
                              needed for program enhancement and develop a strategy for soliciting support for the proposed
                              enhancements.








                                                                       Elizabeth River Restoration               52




                              Section Three: Increasing use and enjoyment
                                                                                      of the Elizabeth
                                         Realizing thefull potential of the resource

                               Goah To raise appreciation of the river's economic,
                                                           ecological and recreational values.

                                                              "The port of Hampton Roads was again the leader
                                                             inforeign waterborne commerce on the East Coast
                                                                             and third in the entire US, with over
                                                                                   53 million short tons of cargo
                                                                     being handled in Hampton Roads in 1993. "
                                                                                 Hampton Roads Maritime Association
                                                                                                 Annual Report 1995




                     Action 11
                     Enhance marketability of Hampton Roads through achieving
                     a cleaner environment, working with localities and the Chamber
                     of Commerce's Plan 2007.


                                     Stepsfor gening there:
                                                                                                     1996-2000
                                            Step 1: The Elizabeth River Project should work with the
                                     Commonwealth, localities and private partners to explore federally
                                     sponsored opportunities for enhancing economic vitality while at the same
                                     time achieving a cleaner Elizabeth River. The following opportunities
                                     should be explored for their ability to achieve both environmental and
                                     economic gains.

                                            e.- EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative,
                                            providing funding of up to $200,000 for improving the economic
                                            viability of abandoned, idled or underused sites by cleaning up
                                            contamination.







                                                                           Flizabeth River Restoration                   53



                                                  EPA Project XL Communities, providing flexibility for
                                              communities to implement their own community-designed and
                                              directed strategies to achieve greater environmental quality.

                                              4.'- EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grants Program,
                                              providing funding for projects' that leverage private investment in
                                              environmental efforts and those that link environmental protection
                                              with sustainable development and revitalization.

                                              Step 2: Encourage local tourism bureaus, economic development
                                     departments and the Chamber of Commerce to become partners in river
                                     cleanup efforts out of recognition for the value that clean rivers play in a
                                     community's marketability to tourists and new businesses concerned about
                                     "quality of life."

                                                                                                 Background action 11
                   Problem addressed:
                            Economic vitality and quality of life, including recreational and marketing opportunities, as
                            impacted by pollution in the Elizabeth River watershed.
                   Stessors:
                            Contamination and widely-held negative perceptions regarding pollution.
                   Indicators for success:
                            Acreage of sites restored to higher economic and environmental health; ability of the community
                            to achieve greater river health through flexible approaches also beneficial to the local economy.
                   Cost:
                            Matching local and/or private funding inay be required. Cost-benefit should be high.

                   Discussion of Brownfields prograin
                            The EPA Brownfields Initiative is intended to "empower states, localities and other agents of
                   econon-dc redevelopment to work together in a timely manner to assess, safely clean up and sustainably
                   reuse brownfields (EPA's Brownfields Action Agenda, 8/21/95)." Brownfields are abandoned, idled or
                   under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real
                   or perceived environmental contamination.
                            The program encourages community groups, investors, lenders, developers and other affected
                   parties to join forces and develop creative solutions to assess and clean up contaminated sites and return
                   them to productive use. Goals include helping participants better understand and overcome unnecessary or
                   perceived liability barriers to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. According to the
                   Brownfields Action Agenda, the program will "help reverse the spiral of unaddressed contamination,
                   declining property values and increased unemployment often found in inner-city industrial areas, wlWe
                   maintaining deterrents to future contamination and EPA's focus on assessing and cleaning up the worst
                   sites first."
                            The program, announced in January 1995, is conducting pilot projects funded at up to $200,000
                   over two years. The pilots include testing of efforts toward removing regulatory barriers without
                   sacrificing protectiveness. The EPA is also working on guidelines to clarify the liability of prospective
                   purchasers, lenders, property owners and others regarding their association with the activities at the site.
                            It should be noted that the Brownfields program has raised some concern that cleanup standards
                   will be lowered for these sites. Such concerns should be weighed with the possibility for the site's cleanup
                   needs remaining unaddressed otherwise.







                                                                               Elizabeth River 99estoration                    54


                                In a $200,000 pilot awarded to Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Ohio), in 1993, $1.6 million in
                       private cleanup dollars has been leveraged, $110,000 in private foundation money has been invested and
                       over $625,000 has been generated in new tax dollars.

                       Discussion of Project AL Communities
                                The EPA announced this initiative in March 1995 as part of President Clinton's report,
                       Reinventing Environmental Regulation. A limited number of communities are being awarded flexibility in
                       the implementation of environmental regulations in exchange for a comn-titment to achieve greater
                       environmental performance. Project XL does not provide grants, but rather flexibility.
                                The pren-tise of this program is that environmental management actions tailored to local
                       conditions can deliver greater environmental quality than uniform "command and contror, approaches
                       which structure solutions nationally. The payoff for communities is the ability to tailor environmental
                       management strategies to local needs, thereby increasing efficiency and environmental quality.
                       Monitoring and stakeholder involvement are both key.

                       Discussion of Sustainable Development Challenge Grants
                                This EPA grant program, also announced in March 1995, is intended to afford flexibility to fund
                       a variety of environmental projects that could not be supported through traditional environmental program
                       grants. Funding is for projects that leverage private investment in environmental efforts and those that
                       link environmental protection with sustainable development and revitalization. Projects which meet these
                       needs n-dght provide an environmental focus to community projects, support initiatives which but for the
                       federal contribution might not be viable or help communities converge around an environmental issue in
                       partnership with the private sector.







                       Action 12
                                Increase public access to the Elizabeth River for the
                       purpose of increasing appreciation of the river and support for
                       restoration, where possible also taking into account the goal of:
                                              increasing vegetated buffer areas, wetlands, forested acreage and
                                         other habitat.


                                         Stepsfor getting there:
                                                                                                                  1996-1997
                                                  Step 1: Elizabeth River Project should obtain a small grant to
                                         identify and publicize existing access sites, providing a map and lists of
                                         facilities available (six month turnaround). Use volunteers to contact local
                                         government officials. Have results formatted, professionally printed and
                                         distributed throughout the area, modeling the effort after Chesapeake bay
                                         Program's Chesapeake Bay Area Access Plan (1990).








                                                                                                                   ._91k_
                                                                                                                 ...dMMW_
                                                                            Elizabeth River Restoration


                                              Step 2: Initiate boat trips to expose children and adults to the
                                      beauty, history and recreational, economic and ecological values of the
                                      Elizabeth River. Continue current cooperative effort between the Elizabeth
                                      River Project and the American Rover passenger schooner to provide
                                      Elizabeth River educational opportunities to thousands of school children.

                                              Step 3: Identify opportunities to support the expansion of existing
                                      public access projects, particularly those such as the City of Virginia
                                      Beach's Elizabeth River Nature and Canoe Trail which at the same time
                                      preserve wildlife habitat

                                               Step 4: Develop additional access to the river on sites identified
                                      by previous studies including Chesapeake Bay Program's Chesapeake Bay
                                      Area Public Access Plan (1990).


                                                                                                   Background action 12
                    Stressors:
                             Loss of support - public/lcgislative/adniinistrative, ignorance, apathy.
                    Indicators for success:
                             Increased use of the river; increased support for clean-up initiatives.

                    Discussion ofpublic access:
                                      Public access can range from a mini-park on a street that dead-ends at
                             the water to a major waterfront park with a boat ramp, picnic areas, and
                             concession stands. The type of access will be dictated by the available land
                             and the preferences of the local communities. Opportunities are modeled in other efforts
                             including:
                                      0   The Elizabeth River Nature and Canoe Trail combines an educational nature trail
                                      with river access by canoe ramp and preservation of habitat. A 30-acre mix of woods
                                      and wetlands on the Eastern Branch in the Kempsville section of Virginia Beach, this
                                      project was completed in Spring 1995 as part of the City of Virginia Beach's new
                                      Virginia Beach Outdoor Plan. The nature trail is 3/4 mile long, meandering through the
                                      first "all natural" park in the city. A two-mile canoe trail follows a narrow portion of the
                                      Eastern Branch.
                                      0 An Elizabeth River Trail providing biking and walking access along the river from
                                      West Glient to Larchmont was recently proposed to Norfolk City Council by a coalition
                                      of citizen interests, including representatives from Norfolk Southern Corp. Funding is
                                      being explored.
                                      0   The James River Association is developing a Greenway System that perhaps could
                                      be extended to the Elizabeth River.
                                      0   In addition, the Friends of the Chicago River have developed model programs to
                                      improve public access and appreciation of the Chicago River, including docent tours of                     e
                                      the downtown waterfront. The American Greenways Program in Arlington is another
                                      resource on greenway development.








                                                                   Elizabeth River Restoration             56




                    Action 13
                           Remove abandoned vessels and pilings, where possible
                    also conserving or replacing habitat.

                                   Stepsfor gefting there:
                                                                                               1996-1997
                                          Step 1: The 1996 General Assembly adopted a state budget
                                   amendment allocating $100,000 each year, 1996 and 1997, to the VA
                                   Marine Resources Commission for removal of abandoned vessels and other
                                   deteriorated structures in the Elizabeth River. The Marine Resources
                                   Commission has already mapped the location of derelict pilings, piers and
                                   vessels in the river.
                                                                                                        1998
                                          Step 2: Identify the owners of piers, pilings and vessels by
                                   consulting local property records or by determining the identity of vessels.
                                   Could be accomplished by volunteers.

                                          Step 3: Meet with local US Coast Guard, US Corps of Engineers
                                   and VA Marine Resources Commission authorities to provide briefing
                                   regarding the information collected in steps one and two. Authorities seek
                                   funding to remove and dispose of the debris pursuant to applicable
                                   authority.

                                          Step 4: Local authorities notify property owners that identified
                                   pilings and vessels will be declared abandoned and removed if not by
                                   property owner.

                                          Step 5: Federal, state and local authorities acquire resources to
                                   remove debris. Note: At this writing, a budget amendment is before the
                                   General Assembly to provide $300,000 per year for 2 years to the VA
                                   Marine Resources commission "for projects to remove abandoned vessels,
                                   deteriorated structures, and waterway obstructions posing a hazard to
                                   recreational boating and the natural environment in the Elizabeth River."

                                                                                      Background action 13
                    Problem addressed:
                           Abandoned vessels are unsightly, contributing to negative attitudes about the river, and can leak
                           pollution and cause navigation hazards. The Western Branch alone has at least 44 abandoned
                           vessels and almost 500 abandoned pilings.
                    Indicators for success:
                           Number of abandoned vessels and pilings in the river.







                                                                           Elizabeth River Restoratio                        57


                Cost:
                         $500,000 - $1 million

                Discussion ofacdon 13:
                                   The Elizabeth River is littered with hundreds of abandoned piers, pilings and vessels.
                         This option proposes to locate the objects, identify the owner of the vessel or property, and
                         procure the resources to remove those objects from the river.
                                   Clearly the presence of old, rotting timbers planted in the river bottom, and the existence
                         of decaying remains of vessels resting on the shoreline, or grounded on shoals, create an eyesore
                         to the scenic panorama of the Elizabeth River. In addition, these pilings and vessels pose a
                         hazard to navigation, not only to commercial traffic in the river, but also to recreational boats
                         which use the river after dark. Human health issues are affected because these pilings can cause
                         boating accidents with loss of life or serious injuries. Vessels and barges which come into
                         contact with river debris may experience hull damage, resulting in groundings and sometimes the
                         loss. of the vessel. Accompanying such an accident is the discharge of oil or other hazardous
                         substances into the Elizabeth River, thereby contaminating the river. Further, past contamination
                         to the river is often absorbed in these wooden pilings and vessels and is gradually released during
                         the hot days of summer when contaminations leach out of the pilings.
                                   The authority to direct the removal of abandoned property in the Elizabeth River lies
                         with the US Corps of Engineers, the VA Marine Resources Commission, and to some extent the
                         US Coast Guard. Consequently, the cooperation of these agencies is crucial to the success of this
                         option. In addition, fitnding will be necessary to pay for removal and disposal of the river debris,
                         action which may be costly for vessels currently abandoned in the river. Preliminary polling
                         indicated widespread support for this option, especially from boaters and those who make their
                         living upon the Elizabeth River.
                                   Abandoned pilings and vessels pose the most significant threat when they are located in
                         or near the navigable channel, or in areas of high recreational boat activity. Therefore, it is
                         recommended that the navigable channels be cleared of this debris first. Also, abandoned pilings
                         and piers located in the area between Lambert's Point and Town Point would add both safety and
                         visual benefits.
                                   Once pilings and vessels are completely removed from the river, the threat posed by the
                         objects are completely eliminated. The leaching from the debris, as well as the danger posed by
                         their presence in the river, are completely eliminated by their removal. The effectiveness of this
                         option is only reduced by the possibility that these pilings and vessel provide a habitat for aquatic
                         life which cannot be replaced.
                                   The cost of removing pilings and piers is very affordable and can be accomplished for
                         very little investment. Several salvage companies have offered to remove the pilings free of
                         charge, provided disposal costs are paid. Expense centers on disposal costs and removal of
                         sunken wrecks. Wreck removal can be dangerous and requires expensive equipment. Any oil
                         soaked debris must be properly disposed of at substantial cost.
                                   Surveys have not revealed any substantial opposition to this option. Volunteers have
                         stepped forward to offer cooperation in the removal of Pilings and piers.








                                                                     Flizabeth River Restoration               58



                           Section 4: Increasing our knowledge about the
                                                                                    Elizabeth River
                                                        Making more informed decisions

                                               Goak Develop and implement a dynamic,
                                          state-of-the-art Watershed Action Plan that is
                                                   effective... affordable... and acceptable.



                                                                        "Ifyou don't know where you're going,
                                                                       you'll probably end up someplace else. "
                                                                                                       DH Lawrence







                    Action 14
                            Establish and maintain an Elizabeth River monitoring
                    program and data bank to provide the scientific foundation for
                    protecting, restoring and sustaining living resources and human
                    health in the Elizabeth River watershed.


                                    Stepsfor getting there:
                                                                                                   1996-1997
                                           Step 1: At the request of the Elizabeth River Project, the 1996
                                    General Assembly adopted a state budget amendment providing $125,000
                                    a year for two years to enhance toxics monitoring capabilities of the VA
                                    Department of Environmental Quality. Speaker Thomas Moss of the House
                                    and State Sen. Stanley C. Walker were early patrons of the bill. The budget
                                    amendment was requested to enhance toxics monitoring capabilities of
                                    DEQ as one part of a comprehensive monitoring and data collection
                                    program, also pooling other local and private resources. During the first
                                    year, scientific, citizen, business, academic and government interests should
                                    be brought together for facilitated discussions of a) achieving an effective
                                    monitoring program; b) resources to be pooled from the public and private








                                                                  Elizabeth River Restorat on


                                 sector. A centralized data bank should be established and improved DEQ
                                 monitoring begun.

                                         Step 2: To facilitate comprehensive monitoring, obtain the
                                 support of relevant leadership for the establishment of an Elizabeth River
                                 Monitoring Program and Databank (ERMPD). The endorsement of
                                 relevant leadership for a basic monitoring approach and generalized goals
                                 should be obtained in the context of seeking leadership support for the
                                 entire Action Plan. More specific monitoring goals should then be
                                 developed to assist with monitoring progress toward achieving actions
                                 outlined in the plan.

                                         Step 3: Relocate Elizabeth River Geographic Information Survey
                                 datasets to a central databank location and begin using to 1) generate
                                 analyses in support of monitoring and management planning, 2) provide
                                 data to others involved in watershed management as feasible.

                                                                                                        1997
                                         Step 4: Begin recommended research elements needed for
                                 monitoring effectiveness, including development of toxics indicators,
                                 sediment criteria, modeling and other data needs for strategic loads
                                 allocation.


                                         Step 5: Complete integration of existing datasets.

                                         Step 6.' Produce first annual State of the Elizabeth River
                                 monitoring report on 1) monitoring results, 2) monitoring improvements
                                 made or planned from research elements, 3) management action
                                 effectiveness, 4) recommendations to improve management actions.


                                                                                      Background action 14
                  Problem addressed:
                          Monitoring provides the only sound basis for guiding and measuring the effectiveness of actions
                          outlined in this plan. Without a system to consistently measure conditions on die river over time,
                          we may be unable to tell if these efforts actually make a difference at all.
                  Stressors:
                          All significant stressors identified in this plan should be monitored.
                  Cost:
                          Program costs could be in excess of $500,000 a year; could start smaller.
                  Indicators for success:
                          Availability of sound data to make and track environmental management decisions.

                  Discussion of action 14.
                                 This initiative received strong support from across all river sectors represented on the
                          Watershed Action Team. However, a widespread perception exists in the Elizabeth River







                                                                                  Elizabeth Riyer Restoration                     6o


                                   community that "the river has been studied to death--it's time to do somediing." With others,
                                   general skepticism of science may cause resentment of inurky, abstract expenditures. Both Of
                                   these concerns have valid roots in 1) the lack of regular, objective reporting on monitoring results
                                   to the public, and 2) a frequently unclear connection between the weight of science and
                                   management actions. These concerns can be allayed through a leadership group that:
                                            0   commits to providing a peer-reviewed, annual report on the health of the Elizabeth
                                            River,
                                                publicly sets management goals clearly linked to these reports, and
                                                publicly and objectively reports, on an annual basis, on its own successes and
                                            failures in meeting its goals (see partnership action).
                                            Reasonable concerns from leadership may arise related to making commitments which
                                   may lead to failure, or reporting complex information that may be inisunderstood and cause
                                   undue alarm. With the complex issues facing die Elizabeth River basin, however, the Watershed
                                   Action Team strongly believes that the best tactics for bringing the community together and
                                   winning its trust and participation are strong, goal-oriented environmental leadership, combined
                                   with an honest and open assessment of facts.
                                            It is recommended that the following goal and objectives be adopted by the ERP
                                   Leaders1iip Review Board.
                                            Goal. "We agree to establish and maintain an Elizabeth River Monitoring Program and
                                   Databank, which will provide the primary scientificfoundation for protecting, restoring and
                                   sustaining those living resources and aspects ofhuman health dependent upon the Elizabeth
                                   River and its tributaries.
                                            Objectives:
                                   1) Establish baseline environmental conditions of the Elizabeth River watershed and
                                   measure changes in those conditions over time. This will be accomplished by:
                                            **e Measuring water column, sediment, biota, habitat, and inputs.
                                                Measuring the health of both the river as a whole and specific problem areas.
                                                Establishing a central Elizabeth River Monitoring Databank.
                                                Insuring availability of all data to the public in reasonably usable form, including
                                            digital files.
                                                Maximizing usefulness of existing data and previous efforts.
                                                Minimizing duplication of effort.
                                                Regularly reviewing and optimizing monitoring to maximize cost-effectiveness.
                                                Developing optimal environmental indicators.
                                                Providing an annual public report on the State of the Elizabeth River, which is
                                            understandable and objective, containing 1) a comprehensive analysis of monitoring
                                            results, 2) a report on progress in monitoring improvements, including research
                                            initiatives, 3) relative effectiveness of Elizabeth River management actions.
                                   2) Understand the causes, natural and anthropogenic, of observed changes in or related to
                                   the Elizabeth River and its tributaries.
                                   3) Determine the effects of observed changes on living resources and aspects of human
                                   health dependent on the Elizabeth River and its tributaries.
                                   4) Provide information on the river system's observed or predicted response to specific
                                   watershed management activities.
                                   5) Provide data necessary to support watershed management activities, including those
                                   recommended by Watershed Action Team in the areas of land use, habitat, contaminants,
                                   fisheries and wildlife management.
                                            Business and city representatives on the Team expressed support for efforts to improve
                                   knowledge of sources of stressors in the Elizabeth River, as this will enhance fair and equitable
                                   distribution of monitoring and mitigation responsibilities, and help them target their own








                                                                         Eliz eth River Resto ion                          61


                       environmental programs more effectively. Several facilities with discharge permits, in fact,
                       expressed willingness to expand monitoring in cooperation with government agencies, including
                       bringing additional resources and funding.
                                 The cost of the Monitoring Prograin and Databank will be significant. The
                       magnitude and complexity of activities in this watershed are of a level
                       unsurpassed statewide, and therefore will demand significant finiding to
                       adequately track effects and guide improvements.
                                 Following agreement to monitoring objectives by principal leaders, a team of
                       scientists and engineers should be assembled to develop a detailed Monitoring
                       Program and Databank proposal, with accurate cost estimates. A well-crafted
                       proposal might describe alternative levels of monitoring, each with a clear
                       statement of its respective costs and benefits. From these, resource
                       sponsors could select the level of monitoring that offers the best balance
                       between meeting the need for environmental information and the availability
                       of funds.
                                 It is recommended that all sectors of the Elizabeth River community, public and private,
                       volunteer to dedicate ongoing, stable funding or other support to implement monitoring
                       initiatives. In addition, the Watershed Action Team has several specific recommendations for
                       resource sources:
                                 0   Private industry--initiate and maintain voluntary sampling of its discharges for
                                 stressors in the Elizabeth River.
                                 *   State government--maintain role as primary lead on water-quality monitoring.
                                 Support habitat, living resource monitoring.
                                 e   VA Dept of Environmental Quality --- reallocate state-owned surplus properties
                                 such as the mobile toxics lab and equipment to the regional office for support of an
                                 in-depth, long-term program in the Elizabeth River.
                                 0   Hampton Roads Sanitation District--provide laboratory space, services and
                                 expertise.
                                 0 Federal government (U.S. EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dept. of
                                 Defense)--provide grants and possible surplus materials (boats, trucks, monitoring
                                 equipment).
                                 9   Educational institutions. Primary schools--conduct ambient stream monitoring as
                                 field trips. Ihgh schools--use monitoring programs to improve math, chemistry, biology
                                 and administrative skills. (Global Rivers Environmental Education Network already
                                 involves a number of local high schools in Elizabeth River water-quality monitoring).
                                 Universities--partner students with lower-level students to collect, collate and perform
                                 technical analysis on data and formulate reports on a regular basis. Tidewater
                                 Community College may be able to provide a boat and student volunteers for ongoing
                                 sampling programs.
                                 *   Cities--work with the proposed council to coordinate stormwater monitoring
                                 programs targeted for Elizabeth River improvement goals.
                                 0   Hampton Roads Planning District Commission--provide repository and staffing
                                 for the Elizabeth River Databank, including an Elizabeth River geographical
                                 information system. Provide general technical support and coordinating functions to
                                 implement council goals.
                                 Citizens--participate in smaller community volunteer monitoring projects. Become
                                 informed participants in local government, including setting and targeting of utility fees
                                 to help accomplish watershed monitoring of residential impacts.
                                 (A fuller exploration of this action is available in the discussion paper, "Elizabeth
                                 River Monitoring Program and Data bank")







                                                                Elizabeth River Restoration           62


                    Action 15
                          Determine ecological effects of Craney Island operations
                    on the Elizabeth River, with the purpose of reaching consensus
                    among interested parties about best management practices and
                    remediation needs.


                                  Stepsfor gefting there:
                                                                                                   1997
                                        Step 1: Design a comprehensive, independent, technologically
                                  sound study intended to generate new data and provide the basis for
                                  recommending possible improvements. The Elizabeth River Project could
                                  serve the lead role. Stake-holders and beneficiaries should be involved in
                                  both planning and financing the study. Study and results should be written
                                  in "plain English" understandable to the general public. Review existing
                                  pertinent literature, rules, regulations & permits; design study, obtain
                                  financial support, organize study team.

                                                                                            1998-1999
                                         Step 2: Complete data collection.

                                         Step 3: Complete data analysis, any recommendations for
                                  possible improvements, report preparation and distribution.


                                                                                  Background action 15
                    Problem addressed:
                           Craney Island is a 2,500-acre confined site operated at the confluence of the Elizabeth and James
                           Rivers for die disposal of dredged material. Questions have been raised about the possible escape
                           of contamination from these dredged materials, although no studies have identified any major
                           pollution problems.
                    Cost:
                           The exact cost of such a study cannot be accurately estimated prior to completion of the study
                           design. The preliminary work necessary to design a study ( a review of the scientific literature,
                           rules, regulations, permits and previous Craney Island studies) and a preliminary report would
                           cost from $15,000 to $20,000.
                                  The cost of this study would be justified by:
                                  :
                                      The significance of Craney Island as one of the world's largest confined dredged
                                   nd material placement areas.
                                  0   The lack of a comprehensive ecological impact research program for Craney Island.
                                  9   The possibility that Craney Island will be expanded and/or used for dredging
                                  materials that are not suitable for ocean disposal.
                                  0   The need to educate the public about the ecological effects of Craney Island
                                  operations (positive or negative) in order to achieve consensus about best management
                                  practices.







                                                                         Elizabeth River Rest ration                       63


                                      The opportunity to develop a new generation of best inanagement practices for
                                 Craney Island and other dredging disposal areas.
                                      The opportunity to identify needs for ecological reinediation, if any.


               Disrussion on action 15:
                                 Craney Island is the major active placement area for dredged material in Hampton
                        Roads. Studies have been done over the years to assess various aspects of its environmental
                        impact. While none of the studies that have been conducted has identified any major pollution
                        problems, some have raised questions and made recommendations that have fueled persistent
                        concerns in the community about Craney Island operations. A comprehensive scientific study
                        should be done to answer the question: what are the ecological effects of Craney Island operations
                        on the Elizabeth River?
                                 The contaminants in the Elizabeth River bottom sediments are transferred to Craney
                        Island during dredging operations. During transfer operations and storage, opportunities exist
                        for contamination and sedimentation problems by effluent ffow, groundwater flow, surface
                        run-off, volatile emissions and plant and animal uptake. The Sediment Task Force has focused
                        on three areas of concern:
                                 *    Transfer of dredged materials into the rehandling basin and subsequent re-dredging
                                 for deposit into the disposal area.
                                 0    Effluent, including pore water released by dredged material de-watering and surface
                                 run-off.
                                 *    Sediment released from the containment area.
                                 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication
                        Technical Framework for Dredged Materials Management                  (November, 1992) provides
                        guidelines for the evaluation of contaminant pathways of concern: cffluent, surface run-off,
                        groundwater leachate and plant and animal uptake. It suggests evaluation techniques for each
                        pathway. These guidelines would provide a framework for the recommended study.
                                 TIiis project should involve all interested parties including beneficiaries of Craney Island
                        operations. A lead agency should be selected which does not have an immediate vested interest
                        in Craney Island operations. The Elizabeth River Project could well serve this role. The
                        planning and financing of the study should involve a coalition of interested parties in order to
                        maintain the spirit of civic cooperation that is appropriate to a study of this important public
                        facility.
                                 (Further elaboration of this action was developed in the discussion paper, "Final
                        Report: Assure BMIP's at Craney Island," available separately.)






               Action 16
                        Develop and implement a "load allocation approach")                                           as a
               voluntary tool for making more informed, more cost-effective
               decisions on how to manage the Elizabeth River.

                                 Stepsfor getting there:







                                                                               Elizabeth River Rest ration                    6-4


                                                                                                                1996-2000
                                                  Step 1: With VA DEQ as the lead agency, prepare a "load"
                                          inventory documenting all point and non-point source pollution input to the
                                          river. URS Consultants has completed much of this work as background
                                          technical reports for this action plan.

                                                  Step 2: Calculate the "load capacity" of the river, or the amount
                                          of pollutants the river can assimilate without impacts to environmental
                                          quality. Modeling the river's flow is a major part of this step and is near
                                          completion under the direction of Dr. David Bascoe at Old Dominion
                                          University. Next is modeling where contaminants end up as a result of that
                                          flow pattern.

                                                  Step 3: Prepare "load reduction targets." Determine the amount
                                          of pollutant which must be removed in order not to exceed the river's
                                          ability to assimilate the pollutant ("load capacity").

                                                  Step 4: Suggest "load" levels allocated among point and nonpoint
                                          sources consistent with target reductions. This step can create "pollutant
                                          trading opportunities" which can encourage more cost-effective
                                          environmental results ("the biggest bang for the buck").

                                                  Step 5: Suggest appropriate allocations and management
                                          strategies based on what we have learned.


                                                                                                      Background action 16
                        Problem addressed:
                                 The need for improved ability to understand and predict pollutant impacts in the watershed and
                                 the need for checks and balances to assure that resources are spent on the greatest environmental
                                 needs.
                        Stessors:
                                 All in the watershed.
                        Costs;
                                 Funding is envisioned to be obtained from grants. Funding may also be obtained from
                                 stakeholders if they feel that the load allocation process will ultimately benefit them by reducing
                                 their costs for toxics reduction activities. Total costs at one point were estimated to range up to
                                 $2 million; however much of the work is already completed.
                        Indicators for success:
                                 Cost effective watershed improvements.

                        Discussion of action 16:
                                          This reduction action is not intended to be used in a regulatory context. This
                                 reduction action involves the development of load allocations for point sources and for
                                 storinwater runoff. The load allocation quantifies the maximuni allowable loading of a pollutant
                                 to a water body, and allocates this loading capacity to contributing point and nonpoint sources.








                                                                                                                   --Aft-
                                                                            Elizabeth River Restorat on                    65


                             EPA encourages the development of load allocations that reflect the tradeoffs between point and
                             nonpoint sources where such tradeoffs achieve the desired environmental results.
                                      Load allocations could become the most important aspect of this plan. They serve as a
                             "blueprint" for making informed decisions concerning the effectiveness of other reduction
                             actions. Load allocations address the impacts of all stressors, since they account for all of the
                             environmental media present in and put into the river. Load allocations consider the effects of
                             pollutant loadings as they relate to sediments quality impacts, water quality impacts, and impacts
                             to biota and human health. The use of load allocations as a guiding strategy allows a system of
                             checks and balances to be put into place to assure that resources that are being expended on
                             reduction actions that are believed to be effective, but are not, are reappropriated to more
                             effective endeavors. Load allocations also allow a determination to be made as to (1) when have
                             we gone far enough, and (2) when will "the straw break the camel's back."
                                      Water quality standards do not exist for many of the pollutants of concern in the
                             Elizabeth River, and to evaluate their impacts based purely on water quality is misleading.
                                      Establishing load allocations involves determining that amount (loading) of a pollutant
                             that can be assimilated by a receiving stream, and that can be predicted to not cause an
                             exceedence of a particular effect. These effects can be related to sediment quality impacts and
                             water quality impacts, as well as human health impacts resulting from food chain accumulation
                             of the pollutant. Once a load allocation is established the relative contributions of the pollutant
                             from point and nonpoint sources are determined, and the load allocation allocated between the
                             sources such that the resulting cumulative discharge would not be predicted to exceed the load
                             allocation.
                                      In developing a load allocation for a stream segment all sources of contamination and
                             potential receptors should be adequately addressed and modeled. In concept a load allocation
                             may be developed and implemented for any pollutant in any watefbody. Decisions to develop
                             load allocations should be based on sound data which takes into account all potential receptors
                             including sediments. The following procedure is commonly used to develop load allocations.
                                      Load allocations have been established in other waterbodies in the U.S.. The State of
                             Washington has recently embarked on an effort to develop load allocations for 23 watersheds in a
                             five year period. The State of North Carolina has also recently applied the load allocation
                             concept in the Tar-Pamlico Basin.



                   Action 17
                             Develop a nutrients task force to establish Elizabeth River
                    nutrient goals and basis for goals, and to recommend control
                    measures needed to achieve goals.

                                      Stepsfor getting there:
                                                                                                                       1996
                                              Step 1: Form a nutrients task force including liaison
                                      representation on the Hampton Roads Tributary Strategies work group,
                                      established under coordination of the Hampton Roads Planning District
                                      Commission to evaluate potential nutrient reduction strategies for
                                      Chesapeake Bay tributaries.








                                                                               -FI*7.abeth River Restoration                  66


                                                  Step 2: Establish nutrient goals and basis for goals;

                                                  Step 3: Evaluate existing data;

                                                  Step 4: Recommend further studies where existing data is
                                          insufficient to establish nutrient goals.
                                                                                                                           2000
                                                  Step 5: Develop a comprehensive water quality model for the
                                          river to evaluate nutrient flux, determine the dominant sources and explore
                                          the effectiveness of different control strategies;

                                                  Step 6: Recommend those nutrient control measures needed to
                                          achieve goals (i.e. BUTs, limits, standards etc).

                                                  Step 7: Follow through to ensure that the recommended controls
                                          are implemented.
                                                                                                                           2005
                                                  Step 8: Assess the effectiveness of the recommended controls.


                                                                                                      Background action 17
                        Problem addressed:
                                 Excessive nutrient pollution is well recognized as a serious problem of the Chesapeake Bay and
                                 its rivers. At the same time, high uncertainty exists regarding appropriate nutrient reduction
                                 goals and controls for the Elizabeth.
                        Stessors:
                                 Nutrients
                        Indicators for success:
                                 Changes in nutrient levels.

                        Discussion of action 17.
                                          The purpose of this paper is to identify: (1) strategies that may increase "affordability"
                                 and (2) strategies that inay increase "acceptability" to the cominunity -- in each case, without
                                 compromising effectiveness.
                                          The following options were considered for the fonnation of die task force:
                                          (a) formation of an independent nutrient task force. This option was considered the
                                 least practical since it could involve "re-inventing the wheel". Increased costs, potential
                                 duplication of existing efforts, and/or conflicting recommendations could result.
                                          (b) formation of a nutrient task force to liaison with the Hampton Roads Tributary
                                 Strategies (HRTS) group. TWs idea probably represents the best approach since the existing
                                 HRTS effort may have much to offer the ERP. Potential liaison functions are listed below:
                                          0   research the HRTS relative to issues unique to the Elizabeth River and to see how
                                          they accomplish the ERP objectives. An overview of the Hampton Roads Tributary
                                          Strategy is given in Attachment #1 of the discussion paper, "nutrients Task Force,"
                                          available separately).







                                                                  Elizabeth River Restoration                   67


                                ensure that information from the existing efforts are best utilized in the ERP
                           process;
                           0    recommend revisions to the HRTS effort to enhance resolution for the Elizabeth
                           River; evaluate fitnding needs for these request(s);
                           The costs associated with the nutrients task force need further study. Actual costs would
                   be dependent upon the degree of detail that existing efforts (already funded) will address ERP
                   objectives. If many objectives are met then costs would be relatively "low". The inverse is also
                   true. The task force could explore further ftinding of the existing effort to enhance specific
                   details needed for the Elizabeth. This could prove more cost effective than carrying out an
                   independent effort.
                           The membership of the ERP nutrients task force has not yet been determined. Potential
                   membership could include some currently involved in both the HRTS and ERP. The ERP
                   nutrients task force should maintain a "balanced" membership to ensure broad acceptability.
                           In the future, high capital costs could be a potential obstacle to implementation of
                   nutrient control measures recommended by the task force. Point and non-point source nutrient
                   controls are generally much more difficult and expensive to implement than conventional
                   pollutant controls. The regulated community needs to be reasonably convinced that the
                   recommended actions will result in tangible improvements to the water quality and/or biological
                   condition. Involvement of the regulated community in the task force will help improve
                   acceptability of the recommended actions.







                                                                    Elizabeth River Restoration




                              Section 5: Creating an Active Partnership to
                                            Manage & Maintain a Healthy River
                                                                                 Working Together


                                            Goak Forge partnerships between citizens,
                                                        industry, scientists and government.
                                                                         Balance competing uses.



                                                     "A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure.
                                                                           It offers a necessity of life that
                                                                            must be rationed among those
                                                                                 who have power over it. "
                                                                                     Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes






                    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; promoting speedy, effective
                    implementation, and enhancing regional watershed planning.

                                    Stepsfor genitig there:
                                                                                                           1996
                                           Step 1: Establish an "implementation structure" for the Elizabeth
                                    River Project's Watershed Action Plan that ensures on-going involvement
                                    in restoration accomplishments and planning by those in the highest levels
                                    of authority. The implementation structure should provide for leaders to







                                                        Fli7abeth River Rest ation                69


                      reach voluntary agreement on mutual goals, with an annual, high-profile
                      report on successes and failures in meeting those goals and subsequent
                      adjustments to implementation efforts. The members of the Elizabeth River
                      Project's new Leadership Review Board are key to regional cooperation in
                      carrying out the plan.

                              Step 2: Leadership support should be one part of efforts by the
                      Elizabeth River Project to establish on-going working relationships with:

                              4- Watershed businesses and their trade groups and umbrella
                              organizations, in particular those dealing directly with river-related
                              commerce, to maximize common goals.

                              4- Residents of the watershed to encourage their participation and
                              support for river improvement efforts.

                              4- Environmental justice-related groups, including the NAACP
                              and Hampton University's environmental justice program.

                              ev The Commonwealth of Virginia, to provide public support and
                              promote speedy, effective implementation of pollutant reduction
                              initiatives outlined in this plan, as well as other river improvement
                              initiatives involving the State.

                              -*.* The Cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake and Virginia
                              Beach, to provide support and education initiatives for enhanced
                              river improvement efforts, particularly those involving municipal
                              stormwater management, public access and the protection of
                              environmentally sensitive areas, and opportunities to enhance the
                              economy through river clean up (see related action).

                              4- The Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, the
                              Hampton Roads Sanitation District, the Southeastern Public
                              Service Authority and other regional authorities to maximize efforts
                              toward mutual objectives, eliminate duplication and tap extensive
                              technical and planning capabilities.

                              -*e US Congress, VA Senate and VA Governor, City Councils and
                              all other pertinent elected officials, to obtain support for
                              implmenting the Action Plan.

                              + The US Army Corps of Engineers, to provide public support
                              and promote speedy, effective implementation of its Elizabeth River
                              Basin reconnaissance study and restoration initiatives.







                                                                   Flizabeth River 9?estQration            70



                                           44- The US Navy and other arms of the military, to maximize
                                           common efforts to restore and protect environmental quality,
                                           particularly on property owned by the military.

                                           I'- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, The Alliance for the
                                           Chesapeake Bay, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy,
                                           Virginia Environmental Network, the Audubon Council, Clean the
                                           Bay Day, SAVE and other environmental initiatives, to maximize
                                           efforts toward common goals.

                                           -*.- Educational and scientific institutions, including colleges,
                                           universities and schools, to promote research, achieve technical
                                           integrity and maximize education of the public on the values and
                                           needs of the Elizabeth River.


                                           -*.- River-oriented recreational organizations, including Festevents
                                           and Ports Events, boat clubs, and watersports teams, to maximize
                                           appreciation and enjoyment of the river.








                                                                               F14zabeth River Re oration                     71













                         Origins of the Watershed Action Plan




                                                                            Genesis of the Elizabeth River Project

                                                   Four citizens sitting around a kitchen table in November 1991 hatched
                                           the idea of organizing a grassroots effort to restore the environmental health of the
                                           Elizabeth River. The degraded state of the river had become well-known through
                                           decades of headlines reporting blind, deformed and cancerous fish in the highly
                                           urbanized river. Government and industrial efforts to curb pollution had made
                                           significant headway since the Clean Water Act of 1973. But some problems,
                                           including contaminated river sediments and storm water run-off, the latter newly
                                           identified as the river's leading source of pollution, appeared too large and
                                           intractable to be solved without a new level of community interest and awareness,
                                           with the resulting willingness to pool resources and pursue new solutions.
                                                   The four citizens decided to test the popularity of pursuing heightened
                                           community involvement in the fate of the Elizabeth. With two more volunteers and
                                           seed grants of less than $2,000, the fledgling "Elizabeth River Project" interviewed
                                           65 community leaders from all walks of life during spring and summer 1992. Did
                                           these leaders value the Elizabeth River? What did they perceive as the river's
                                           biggest problem, and what, if anything, did they want done about it? The findings:
                                           Community support appeared favorable for a community partnership to tackle the
                                           river's problems. The vast majority of community leaders interviewed said the
                                           river is under-valued for its economic, recreational and aesthetic contributions to
                                           Hampton Roads and its health should be improved. A non-finger pointing,
                                           consensus building approach was frequently recommended.
                                                   On Sept. 10, 1992, thirty community leaders came together for the first
                                           meeting of an Elizabeth River Project "Advisory Board." Participants marveled on
                                           the novelty of sitting side by side with competing interests -- regulatory, business,
                                           environmental, recreational, military, scientific -- to discuss common goals for the
                                           Elizabeth River. A commitment to including all interests in the search for solutions







                                                          Fli7abeth River Restoration                 72


                     has remained a halhTwk of the Elizabeth River Project. Incorporated in April
                     1993, the project has modeled its early planning phases to reflect Advisory Board
                     directives to find a consensus among government, citizen, business and scientific
                     interests.


                                                             Choosing a modelfor consensus

                              The Elizabeth River Project needed a structured way to build consensus
                     among diverse interests, and it needed fimding for the process. Marine Scientist
                     Dr. Robert J. Huggett, then vice president of the Project's new Board, was an
                     author of a high-profile EPA document, Reducing Risks, calling for a new
                     planning approach wedding science with public values for stronger policy
                     decisions. Huggett suggested that the Elizabeth River Project try this approach as
                     modeled by the State of Michigan's Comparative Risk Program. To set
                     environmental priorities, Michigan established a Citizen Committee, a Government
                     Committee and a Science Committee. Each comn-dttee drew up a list of Michigaifs
                     environmental ills. The committees then exchanged lists and learned from each
                     other as they developed an informed consensus.
                              In fall 1993, the Elizabeth River Project was awarded two-year grants of
                     $50,000 (later upgraded to $74,000) from the EPA's Regional and State Planning
                     Branch and $20,000 from the Virginia Environmental Endowment to conduct an
                     assessment and ranking of risks in the Elizabeth River watershed, following
                     Michigan's Comparative Risk model.

                                    PhaseI. Assessing the seriousness of the problems

                              On March 17, 1994, the Elizabeth River Project held an overnight retreat
                     in Yorktown to launch three committees whose job would be to reach agreement
                     among diverse interests on the Elizabeth River's most serious problems.
                              The Citizen/Industry, Government/Agency and Scientific/Technical
                     Committees numbered 80 volunteers representing a broad spectrum of concerns.
                     Members ranged from the Captain of the Port for the US Coast Guard to a
                     representative of the Garden Club of Norfolk; from the treasurer of the South
                     Tidewater Association of Ship Repairers to the director of the Applied Marine
                     Research Lab at Old Dominion University.
                              The committees first identified their own lists of problems, then
                     exchanged lists and came to agreement on a final list to be researched and ranked.
                     Scientists and engineers from the committees developed technical reports on the
                     degree of risk posed by each problem to human health, environment and quality of
                     life. At a culminating retreat Nov. 17-18, the three committees reached unanimous
                     agreement on a ranking of high, medium or low risk for nine out of the 10
                     problems before them.
                              Ranked "high risk" were:
                                  4- Sediment Quality and Sedimentation Processes;
                                      Loss of Habitat & Biota
                                     Non-Point Source Pollution,
                                  4- Point Source Pollution (the only ranking not unanimous).








                                                                                'F abeth River Restoratio                        73
                                                                                  h7                             n



                                                   Medium risk:
                                                       * Contaminated Groundwater
                                                       -10- Hazardous Materials Transportation & Storage
                                                       4- Altered Hydrology
                                                       4- Dredging & Dredged Material Placement.
                                                   Low risk:
                                                       4.- Vessel Discharges
                                                       4- Non-Indigenous Species.

                                                   Results of the ranking were announced to the public at the Elizabeth River
                                          Project conference, "Elizabeth River: Strategies," on Jan. 10, 1995 at the Norfolk
                                          Waterside Marriott. All 240 participants were invited to brainstorm ideas and to
                                          volunteer for task forces for the next planning phase: "risk management," or what
                                          to do about the high risk problems.

                                             Phase IP Researching a plan to manage the worstproblems

                                                   The ranking provided the Elizabeth River Project with a strong focus for
                                          its final planning phase, designing an Action Plan. On April 27, 1995, the Project
                                          launched a new "Watershed Action Team" charged with planning state-of-the-art
                                          strategies for addressing each of the high risk problems identified in phase one. The
                                          team included three work groups focusing on these high risk problems: a Habitat
                                          & Living Resources Task Force, a Sediment Quality Task Force and a Water
                                          Quality Task Force, the last addressing both point-source and non-point source
                                          pollution.
                                                   The team also included a fourth work group, the Toxics Reduction
                                          Team, requested by the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide stakeholder
                                          recommendations on how to reduce toxic impacts in the Elizabeth River. Virginia
                                          Secretary of Natural Resources Becky Norton Dunlop was keynote speaker as the
                                          four work groups kicked off with a tour of the Elizabeth aboard the Carrie B.
                                                   The team's membership represented the greatest diversity yet of any
                                          Elizabeth River Project board. By June, the team had agreed to a common vision
                                          and common goals and begun the work of developing a common understanding of
                                          the problems, including identifying the major river stressors. By Sept. 11, each
                                          work group had identified a preliminary list of promising actions. Criteria for
                                          arriving at a final list were developed, emphasizing three areas of research:
                                          effectiveness, affordability and acceptability to the community. A first draft, based
                                          on the first leg of research, addressing effectiveness only, was finished by Nov. 13.
                                                   To assure that the plan takes into account the needs and concerns of the
                                          larger community, presentations on the draft plan were made to interest groups in
                                          November, December and January. A summary of the plan and questionnaire on
                                          acceptability was mailed to about 1,000 residents during this period and results
                                          provided to the Watershed Action Team for final deliberations. In addition, leaders
                                          representing the highest levels of authority, knowledge and influence on river issues
                                          were recruited to provide feedback on a "Leadership Review Board." Additional
                                          team research of "affordability and acceptability" was concluded Jan. 3 1. The








                                                         Elizabeth River Restoration                 74


                   Watershed Action Team reached consensus on an action agenda based on this
                   additional research at a retreat Feb. 29/March 1.

                                                   Virginia Is toxics reduction commitment

                            For a decade, Virginia has been a partner with other states along the
                    Chesapeake Bay in commitments to restore the health of the Bay. In 1994,
                    Virginia Governor George Allen carried on the commitment by signing an
                    agreement to develop a plan for reducing toxic impacts in three Bay Regions of
                    Concern. One of the three Regions of Concern is the Elizabeth River.
                            Consultants to the tri-state Chesapeake Bay Program recommended
                    assembling stakeholder teams to design the "Regional Action Plans" for reducing
                    toxic impacts. Meanwhile, staff of the Virginia Department of Environmental
                    Quality had been committee members during phase one of the Elizabeth River
                    Project's planning efforts and were aware of the Project's parallel schedule for
                    developing an Action Plan on related issues. An agreement was signed in March
                    1995 for the Commonwealth to assist with funding and technical support while the
                    Elizabeth River Project incorporated the toxics component into its plan
                    development.

                                                                     Implementation Structure

                    Elizabeth River Project Board of Directors
                    ee  Serves in catalyst role to ensure that the Watershed Action Plan is
                        carried out by those organizations with the most appropriate authority
                        and capabilities. Where no appropriate authority exists or where those
                        with the authority remain hesitant, the project considers acting in
                        catalyst role to form new partnerships, or considers directly carrying
                        out demonstration or education projects in order to sell the action to
                        others on a larger scale.
                    4- Designs, seeks funding for, appoints and is ultimately responsible for
                        volunteer Implementation Committees.

                    Elizabeth River Project Ad-hoc Implementation Committees
                        Volunteers from diverse interests who help.ensure the transition into
                        implementation by making contacts, following up, monitoring progress
                        and adjusting plans as needed.

                    Leadership Review Board
                    4-  This board was established in 1995 to represent the highest levels of
                        authority, influence and knowledge on river issues. The review board
                        has commented on the first draft of the plan and has been asked to
                        provide comments on the final draft before it is made public. The
                        purpose is to make sure that actions take into account the interests and







                                                                  Ffi7abeth River Restuation             75


                                      concerns of the larger community, especially those with authority to
                                      assist with implementation.

                                      Public Involvement Committee - This committee plans activities to
                                      build support for the Watershed Action Plan, including a major annual
                                      conference. The mission of the Public Involvement Committee is to
                                      assure acceptability of the plan in the community.

                                      Ways & Means Committee - This committee finds funding for action
                                      implementation, including securing grants and organizing fund drives.

                                  4-  Technical Review Committee - Technical assistance and review will
                                      be needed during the implementation phase of the Watershed Action
                                      Plan. A technical review committeee is envisioned to assure the
                                      scientific integrity of actions as they proceed.







                                                                              Elizabeth River Restoration                   76













                        Ecological health of the Elizabeth River



                                          Excerpted from background technical reports by URS Consultants, 1995,
                                          developedfor the Toxics Reduction Team of the Watershed Action Team. 7his
                                          section provides an overview of the physical setting, the habitat, and the species
                                          which inhabit the Elizabeth River watershed Much of the material is from
                                          two sources (Huggett, RJ, et aL, 1992; Chesapeake Bay Executive Council,
                                          1988.).

                        Physical Setting of the Elizabeth River Watershed

                                                  The Elizabeth River is a simple tidal estuary consisting of a main stem
                                          and three major branches. It has been changed from the once typical marsh-lined
                                          estuary by several centuries of channel dredging, bulkheading, and filling. The
                                          most recent stage, the diking and filling of Craney Island (a dredged materials
                                          disposal area), has lengthened the mainstem of the river by several kilometers and
                                          isolated much of the Port Norfolk area. The present river, particularly the
                                          mainstern and the Southern and Eastern Branch portions, is characterized by a
                                          single deep central channel, fringed by shallows, tidal flats, and developed
                                          shorelines. The Eastern Branch divides the industrial center of the city of Norfolk
                                          and is lined by industry, with residential areas in Virginia Beach. The Southern
                                          Branch is the longest section of the river and is lined by industries including the
                                          world's largest naval shipyard. It routes the major small boat traffic of the
                                          Intracoastal Waterway around the Dismal Swamp into the Albemarle Sound,
                                          North Carolina. The Western Branch is somewhat different. It joins the mainstem.
                                          near the river's mouth and has multiple relatively shallow channels; its shoreline is
                                          primarily residential, and natural marsh areas are abundant. The physical nature
                                          of the Elizabeth River is such that little flushing of contaminants occurs. The tidal
                                          currents are relatively slow, and the freshwater influx is low due to canal locks on
                                          the upper river, which regulate flow. Dredging is responsible for most of the
                                          removal of contaminants in sediments, but this is operative only in and at the edges
                                          of the channel. The shipping channels are heavily used and are maintained by the









                                                                                                           _10M.-

                                                                       Efizabeth River Restorat on          . 1     77


                                  Corps of Engineers. This maintenance consists primarily of removing shallow
                                  spots caused by slumping of channel edges.

                 Fish and Wildlife Habitats of the Elizabeth River Watershed

                                          The variety of habitats within the lower Chesapeake Bay, including the
                                  Elizabeth River, can be classified using the two most basic factors controlling the
                                  distribution of Bay biota: water depth and salinity. In this classification of
                                  habitats, gradients of depth and salinity can be divided into descriptive zones.
                                  Depths range from the deepest troughs and channels in the mainstem Elizabeth
                                  River to the intertidal shores and upland areas bordering tidal waters. Within
                                  these zones, many other physical and biotic factors such as sediment type, the
                                  presence of food and cover, the strength of waves and currents, water temperature,
                                  dissolved oxygen, and habitat contamination and disturbance control the
                                  distribution and abundance of living resources. A generic system of habitat zones
                                  offers a simplistic way to classify, describe, monitor, and manage living resources
                                  in the Elizabeth River.


                 Upland Shore Zone

                                  A variety of vegetation types exists on the upland shores that are the terrestrial
                                  communities at elevations above the influence of tides. Upland shore zones are
                                  dominated by typical terrestrial field grasses, trees, shrubs, and weeds. These
                                  zones are frequently utilized by invertebrates, insects, waterfowl and upland birds,
                                  mammals, and humans. In many cases, the physical nature of these upland
                                  regions is heavily influenced by human activities, especially development and
                                  agriculture. Several species that depend upon Bay aquatic habitats also rely upon
                                  these terrestrial environments for food, cover, or nesting sites. Examples of these
                                  species include the bald eagle, Canada goose, river otter, beaver, and raccoon.
                                          Upland areas are subject to contaminants originating from mosquito
                                  control pesticides, agricultural chemicals, toxic waste dumping, aerial drift, and
                                  stormwater runoff. The contaminants from these activities can affect both aquatic
                                  and terrestrial organisms, food resources, and habitats. A prime example of such
                                  an impact is directly related to a protected species, the bald eagle. The historic
                                  application of DDT to agricultural fields resulted in contamination of foood
                                  sources (fish) and habitat (vegetative cover) of the bald eagle. The net result was
                                  the adverse impact to reproductive success and survival which eventually led to
                                  the enactment of the Endangered Species Act.

                 Intertidal and Littoral Zone

                                          The intertidal and littoral zones include areas with water depths of
                                  approximately 0.5 meters (in) or less. They are semi-aquatic habitats, covered
                                  periodically by tidal waters or washed by waves. These zones include marshes,
                                  sandy beaches, mudflats, and man-made shoreline structures such as revetments
                                  and bulkheads. Saltrnarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) is the most common
                                  type of vegetation observed in the marshes and along shorelines.                This
                                  serni-submerged plant is a major habitat component of wetland systems, providing




                                                                             F18zaheth River Me oration _11@ 78

                                          shelter and serving as a food resource for many fish and wildlife species.
                                          Mudflats have a common association with saltmarsh cordgrass. They are readily
                                          observed at low tide. Mudflats provide substrates for many benthic invertebrates
                                          that are food resources for various species of fish and wildlife. Representative
                                          species include shorebirds, waterfowl, muskrats, many benthic invertebrate
                                          species, and larval or juvenile stages of finfish and crabs.

                        Shallow Water Zone


                                                  The shallow water zone (to a depth of < 3 m) includes the uppermost
                                          waters over the surface of the entire Bay and its tidal tributaries as well as the
                                          bottom sediments in the shallow-water areas. Shallow water zones are typically
                                          those shallow waters that lie between low and high tides. These zones are usually
                                          readily observed in small creeks leading into tidal marshes.         Examples of
                                          important resident organisms include submerged aquatic vegetation, waterfowl,
                                          shallow-water benthic species, crabs, and most juvenile finfish.
                                                  Non-point source pollutants make their biggest impact on the intertidal,
                                          littoral, and shallow water zones where the majority of fish and wildlife species
                                          can be found in their early life stages. Contaminants originating from point, i.e.
                                          direct discharge, and other non-point sources are at their maximum concentration
                                          when entenng the shallow water habitats. As a result, fish and wildlife are often
                                          exposed to some of the most severe environmental conditions during their most
                                          sensitive life stages.

                        Mid- Water Zone


                                                  The mid-water zone, with water depths between 3 and 6 m, includes the
                                          mid-layer of pelagic waters and the underlying sediments. Mid-water zones are
                                          typically found in open waters of large body creeks and river areas adjacent to
                                          channels. There is typically an increasing depth gradient moving in the direction
                                          toward the channel. These zones are always covered by water, regardless of tidal
                                          fluctuations. Submerged aquatic vegetation is absent from all but the clearest
                                          waters at these depths. Oyster and soft shell clam habitats are most common in
                                          this zone. Oyster communities support a specialized community of invertebrates,
                                          finfish and microorganisms. In the summer, finfish, crabs, and other invertebrates
                                          which would normally inhabit deeper water may be restricted to the mid-water
                                          zone by the availability of dissolved oxygen.
                                                  Mid-water zones are usually those waters that are subject to water column
                                          and sediment contan-tination. Currents play a large role in the distribution of
                                          contaminants in the mid-water zones. Stormwater runoff from upland areas can
                                          result in the transport of contaminated water and terrigenous soils capable of
                                          impacting the mid-water zones. Tidal waters may also serve to redistribute
                                          contaminated water and sediments from so-called "hot spots" in the Elizabeth
                                          River to areas of lesser contamination where suitable fish and wildlife activity may
                                          currently exist.

                        Deep Water Zone









                                                                                                            -gmb--.

                                                                      Elizabeth River Restoratio                    79


                                The deep wate    r zones of the Elizabeth River are usually the natural or
                                navigational channels. Navigational channels are usually subject to extensive
                                dredgmg to accommodate shipping traffic and associated turbulence.                 The
                                combination of man-made turbulence and the natural seasonal depletion of
                                dissolved oxygen levels does not permit channel environments to be utilized by
                                migratory fish and wildlife species other than for movement corridors. The deep
                                water zone within the Elizabeth River is usually devoid of benthic life that would
                                otherwise be found elsewhere in other deep water zones of the Chesapeake Bay.
                                         Deep water zones within military complexes and other industrial activities
                                are subject to the -influences of both point and non-point source pollution. Ship
                                propeller and wake turbulence, in addition to natural tidal movements, result in the
                                distribution of water and sediment contaminants away from the immediate area.
                                Nearby fish and wildlife habitats are at risk as a direct consequence of the
                                contaminant transport and redistribution.

               WdlandHabitats


                                         Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and tidal wetlands constitute a
                                major functional resource for fish and wildlife ecology. Although tidal wetlands
                                are more dominant in the Elizabeth River, SAVs are an important Chesapeake Bay
                                resource.


               SubmergedAquatic Vegdation

                                Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is one of the Chesapeake Bay's most
                                significant natural resources. In 1976, the decline of SAV was selected as one of
                                the three major Bay problems (the only one directly focused on living resources) to
                                be further researched. Since that time, SAV has remained at the forefront of
                                public consciousness. It provides food and habitat for fish, numerous other
                                aquatic organisms, and waterfowl. SAV remains a visible indicator of good water
                                quality and the general ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay.
                                Several of the key species identified for detailed analysis in this effort require SAV
                                (directly or indirectly) for food and/or habitat. Plants such as eelgrass (a common
                                SAV species in mid to high salinity regions) and emergent marsh grasses are
                                major sources of primary productivity in the shallow waters of the Bay. In
                                addition to being a direct food source for some consumers, organic detritus
                                produced by decomposition of plant material provides food for other primary
                                consumers such as small crabs, shrimp, selected fish and other detritivores.
                                Associations between SAV and finfish, shellfish, and waterfowl are well
                                documented. The most important waterfowl wmtenng areas have been the most
                                abundantly vegetated. Fish abundance in SAV communities in the upper Bay is
                                high, indicating the importance of SAV for food and shelter. Lower Bay SAV
                                beds serve as a primary blue crab nursery, sheltering large numbers of juvenile
                                blue crabs throughout the year. Because prey organisms use SAV habitats,
                                predators may be attracted to the beds. Adult fish, such as striped bass and
                                bluefish, may hunt invertebrate prey in SAV beds. Summer resident wading and
                                shore birds seek prey in or near SAV beds.








                                                                            Fli7abeth River Restoration                  80


                                                SAV also functions as an important stabilizer for sediments. As turbid
                                        water circulates through SAV beds, sediments tend to settle out, resulting in
                                        clearer water and increased light transmittance. Direct uptake of nitrogen and
                                        phosphorus by SAV and its associated epiphytes also serves to buffer nutrient
                                        levels in the water during the spring and summer growing season. Decomposition
                                        of SAV releases nutrients back to the water column during the fall and winter
                                        when water column nutrient concentrations are lower. SAVs can be exposed to
                                        water and sediment contaminants that are transported by tidal action from
                                        contaminated sites. Chemicals with phytoxic (i.e., herbicidal) properties are a
                                        potential concern for habitat alteration. Without vigorous vegetative support, fish
                                        and wildlife quality declines.



                       Tidal Wetlands


                                                The abundance of food and shelter provided by marsh grasses ensures a
                                        very favorable habitat for other members of this community. Examples of major
                                        marsh grasses include the saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and the
                                        common reed (Phragmites australts). A host of invertebrates feed on decomposed
                                        plant material and, in turn, provide food for numerous species of higher animals.
                                        Another source of food is the dense layer of bacteria, algae, and microscopic
                                        animals that coats the stems of marsh plants. Decomposing plants and, to a lesser
                                        extent, dead animals are major food sources for the marsh dwellers. Therefore,
                                        the primary food web in the marsh environment is based on detritus. Tidal
                                        marshes are also important as physical habitat for estuarine species.
                                                Salinity and frequency of tidal flooding are the most important factors in
                                        determining the types of plant and animal populations that inhabit a particular
                                        marsh. Freshwater marsh vegetation includes cattails, reeds, arrowartim, big
                                        cordgrass, wild rice, three-square, tearthumb and pickerel weed. Salt marshes of
                                        the mid and lower Bay are dominated by salt meadow cordgrass, saltgrass, and
                                        saltmarsh cordgrass. Irregularly flooded salt marshes have the fewest plant
                                        species and are dominated by needlerush.

                       Indigenous Fish and Wildlife Species of the Watershed

                                        The Elizabeth River plays host to a variety of nonendangered and endangered fish
                                        and wildlife species that utilize the marine and terrestrial habitats of the lower
                                        Chesapeake Bay. Some species are year round residents while the majority are
                                        mostly seasonal in occurrence. The value of the Chesapeake Bay as a nursery and
                                        development ground is well known. The risk of exposure to Elizabeth River
                                        contaminants and habitat alteration is becoming a concern as a result. A general
                                        discussion of the major classes of biological organisms which can be found in the
                                        Elizabeth River watershed follows.
                                                Fish and wildlife species within the Elizabeth River ecosystem are more at
                                        risk to chronic, sublethal exposure to contaminants as opposed to acute lethal
                                        exposure.    There has been limited research on chronic exposure to toxic
                                        contaminants found in the Elizabeth River to fish and wildlife species. Table 1. 1
                                        provides a brief summary of marine organism chronic toxicity symptoms




                                                                     Elizabeth River Restoratio _11@ 81

                               encountered with contaminated Elizabeth River sediments, primarily polycyclic
                               aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminated sediments. Existing data is too limited
                               to determine the extent that toxic contaminants found in the Elizabeth River are
                               impacting avian, reptilian, mammalian, and amphibian species, including rare,
                               threatened, and endangered species.        A list of species that are considered
                               protected, threatened or endangered by federal and state laws and are known to
                               inhabit the lower Chesapeake Bay are provided in Table 1.3.

              PhYtoplankton and Bacteria

                               Phytoplankton are microscopic, usually single-celled plants, representing several
                               divisions of algae. They constitute the base of the food chain; the major primary
                               producers in Chesapeake Bay. Thus, phytoplankton play a fundamental role in the
                               structure of the ecosystem. They are the major food source for a number of
                               species including zooplankton, benthic suspension feeders, and fish. Bacteria are
                               single-celled organisms that are responsible for tremendous amounts of carbon and
                               nutrient-cycling processes. As part of the detritus food chain, their role in
                               decomposition of organic matter, particularly dead plankton cells, is a major
                               causative factor of anoxia in bottom waters of.the Bay.
                                        In the surface waters of the Bay, dissolved nutrients and sunlight are taken
                               up by these photosynthetic organisms. Factors which control fluctuations in
                               phytoplankton numbers, composition, and production are critical to the success or
                               failure of higher trophic levels. The balance among photosynthesis, nutrient
                               exchange and predation ultimately determines planktonic species composition.
                               Large changes in nutrient and toxic loadings can also cause changes in the
                               quantity and quality (size and species composition) of plankton communities in the
                               system. There is growing evidence that a combination of factors, probably arising
                               from the synergistic effect of point and nonpoint source discharges of toxics and
                               nutrients, are causing a shift in species composition. This shift is reflected in high
                               production of bacteria and minute phytoplankton species (favoring
                               microzooplankton production) and may be related to reduced population numbers
                               in the higher trophic levels of the system. Oysters, for example, may grow more
                               slowly in areas where nutrient enrichment has shifted phytoplankton species
                               composition to smaller species which are not suitable as food. The tidal actions of
                               the lower Chesapeake Bay replenishes the plankton supplies of the Elizabeth
                               River. However, there is insufficient information to determine the effects of water
                               column contaminants on planktonic populations within the Elizabeth River where
                               flushing rates are low.

              Zooplankton

                                        Zooplankton are swimming or floating animals that range from
                               microscopic to jellyfish size.      Many are important food for fish and other
                               organisms.     For example, endangered sea turtle species feed on jellyfish.
                               Zooplankton represent important primary consumers in the Chesapeake Bay food
                               web, and thus finiction as a key link in the transfer of energy derived from
                               phytoplankton, bacteria and detritus to higher trophic levels. Some zooplankton,
                               particularly the mesozooplankton (medium-size), function as important and often




                                                                             Elizabeth Riv r Restoration _*' 82

                                         critical links by supplying food to larval stages of many fish and shellfish species
                                         in higher trophic levels.      The distribution of niesozooplankton and the
                                         phytoplankton upon which they feed is a function of salinity.
                                                 Jellyfish, including ctenophores (comb jellies) and sea nettles, prey on the
                                         smaller zooplankton and many influence summer planktonic populations and
                                         distributions. Microzooplankton, which are mostly single-celled protozoa, feed
                                         heavily on bacteria. The larvae.of benthic animals and finfish are also considered
                                         to be zooplankton. These larvae prey on smaller forms of plankton and may be
                                         consumed by larger animals. As the larvae develop, they may in turn consume
                                         other zooplankton.
                                                 Zooplankton populations experience shifts in composition when exposed
                                         to contaminants. Where nutrients elevate phytoplankton populations, herbivorous
                                         zooplankton population become dominant. When water column contaminants
                                         exert stress on zooplankton populations, reproductive success and survival are
                                         minimized or reduced. Without adequate zooplankton quantity, the growth of
                                         foraging finfish can be impacted. 'Me tidal actions of the lower Chesapeake Bay
                                         replenishes the Elizabeth River zooplankton populations. However, there is
                                         insufficient information available to determine possible effects on zooplankton
                                         populations within the low flushing areas of the Elizabeth River.

                        Benthos (Bottom-Dwelling)

                                                 The Chesapeake Bay supports an active community of organisms which
                                         live in association with bottom sediments or attached to solid substrate such as
                                         oyster shells, pilings, rocks, and shoreline structures.         This assemblage,
                                         collectively known as the benthos, represents a major component of the Bay
                                         ecosystem. The benthos forms an important link between primary producers and
                                         higher trophic levels. Many benthic organisms are principal food sources for fish,
                                         waterfowl and crabs, while others are of direct economic importance (crabs,
                                         clams, oysters). Benthic organisms also play a significant role in the detrital
                                         pathway, breaking down organic matter. These decomposers are responsible for
                                         many key benthic processes, including nutrient recycling, sediment chemistry, and
                                         the depletion of dissolved oxygen.
                                                 The temporal and spatial distribution of benthic communities is
                                         determined primarily by chemical and physical factors (mainly salinity, depth,
                                         substrate, dissolved oxygen concentration, and temperature). The distribution and
                                         abundance of organisms composing benthic communities are, therefore, likely to
                                         respond to changes in water and sediment quality. Many benthic organisms live
                                         for 1-2 years or longer so that benthic communities are excellent indicators of an
                                         area's short and long-term trends in environmental quality. In addition, because
                                         benthic organisms past the larval stage are relatively immobile, they often
                                         complete much of their life cycles within well-defined regions of the Bay. As a
                                         result, benthic responses to changes in habitat quality are likely to be
                                         region-specific. As important intermediate links in the Bay's food web, benthic
                                         community responses to habitat changes are also likely to be representative of the
                                         responses of other living resources.
                                                  Benthic organisms are impacted by both water and sediment
                                         contaminants. Immobile filter-feeding organisms, such as oysters, remove water







                                                                      Elizabeth River Restoratio                    83


                                borne contaminants from the water column and often bioaccurnulate the
                                contaminants in their tissue. Alternately, they can uptake, metabolize and convert
                                contaminants into more toxic forms. Mobile species, such as blue crabs, have
                                shown that commercially important fisheries can be challenged by contaminants,
                                as demonstrated by tissue burdens of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
                                the Elizabeth River.


               Finfish

                                Finfish represent the majority of Chesapeake Bay nekton species. The trophic
                                relationships of fish are diverse, depending on developmental stage, life histories,
                                or physiological adaptations of different species. Most of the large fish species of
                                the Bay like bluefish, striped bass, and sea trout, are temporary residents, living in
                                the Bay for part of the year or only during certain stages of their life cycles to
                                spawn or feed. Resident finfish, such as bay anchovies, hogchokers, and white
                                perch, tend to be smaller in size. T'he spawning behaviors of Chesapeake Bay
                                finfish place them into two main categories: ocean-spawning fish (spot, croaker,
                                menhaden) and freshwater or estuarine-spawning fish (striped bass, herrings,
                                shad).
                                Finfish occupy different trophic levels at specific stages of their lives. Most
                                finfish initially feed on zooplankton and later turn to larger prey. The highest rates
                                of survival of larval stages have been shown to correlate positively with the
                                highest zooplankton densities. Thus, the success of species using the Bay as
                                nursery grounds in its early life stages is dependent on the availability of certain
                                types of plankton.
                                Finfish are represented by all consumer levels within the Bay's food web. Primary
                                consumers, such as abundant schools of plankton-feeding menhaden, represent a
                                major pathway from the primary producers directly to harvestable resources.
                                Bluefish and striped bass are secondary or tertiary consumers, feeding on smaller
                                finfish. Finfish also serve as prey for other consumer-level species. The diets of
                                many invertebrates, waterfowl, and some mammals are composed largely of fish.
                                        Migratory finfish utilizing the Elizabeth River ecosystem have
                                demonstrated toxicity problems associated with contaminated sediments. Finfish
                                samples from the Southern Branch Elizabeth River have exhibited health problems
                                (e.g. eye lens cataracts, lesions, fin rot) that warrants fiuffier investigation.

               Waterfowl and Upland Birds

                                        In addition to the Chesapeake Bay's importance as a source of valuable
                                finfish and shellfish resources, the marshes and woodlands surrounding the Bay
                                provide habitat for a variety of waterfowl, birds and other vertebrates.The
                                Chesapeake Bay is part of an important migratory path known as the Atlantic
                                flyway. Most of the waterfowl reared between the western shore of Hudson Bay
                                and Greenland spend some time in the marshes and on the waters of the
                                Chesapeake Bay during their migrations.
                                        Like finfish, bird species occupy all consumer levels of the food web.
                                Some birds feed on primary consumers (such as mollusks), while other species
                                feed on primary producers (plants). Birds feeding on secondary consumers, such








                                                                                                                 --Ibk-
                                                                            Flinbeth River Restoration                    84


                                        as fish, are considered tertiary consumers; at the extreme edge of the food web,
                                        these high-level consumers (e.g. bald eagles) are often the first to be affected by
                                        disruption of the ecological integrity of the Bay. There is insufficient information
                                        available to characterize the risk of avian populations from Elizabeth River
                                        contaminants.


                       Mammals


                                                Within the lower Chesapeake Bay ecosystems, terrestrial and marine
                                        mammals are frequently observed. Muskrats are year-round residents in Elizabeth
                                        River tidal wetlands. In fresh water drainages from the Dismal Swamp into the
                                        Elizabeth River, beavers are also considered permanent residents. Porpoises and
                                        whales are representative marine mammals that occur in the lower Chesapeake
                                        Bay on a seasonal basis. Porpoises, commonly referred to as dolphins, are an
                                        occasional to common sight in the Elizabeth River.            In 1987-88, dolphin
                                        populations experienced massive mortalities in the lower Chesapeake Bay and off
                                        the Virginia coast. Although the cause was attributed to bacterial infection,
                                        measurements of chemical contaminants in body tissues leaves open the question
                                        of possible contribution of the Elizabeth River to this event. There is insufficient
                                        information available to characterize the risk of marine mammals to Elizabeth
                                        River contaminated food resources.


                       Endangered Species

                                                 Table 1.2 is a listing of rare, protected and endangered species known to
                                        occur in the lower Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, including the Elizabeth River
                                        Watershed. There is insufficient information available to determine any potential
                                        risk to such species from Elizabeth River contaminants. Many of these species are
                                        associated with somewhat suitable fish and wildlife habitats within the Elizabeth
                                        River Watershed. The history of contaminants and endangered species justifies a
                                        closer look to examine the potential for exposure to Elizabeth River contaminants.
                                        For example, the piscivorous (i.e. fish-eating) habits of raptors (e.g. eagles,
                                        ospreys) and their presence within the Elizabeth River Watershed provides an
                                        opportunity for contaminant exposure.




                                                                           Flozabeth River Restoratio -1k 85



                                                                  Table 1.1
                         Elizabeth River Fish and Wildlife Contaminant Pathology Research Findings


      Species                                       Observations                                 Results



      Spot                                          Healthy fish exposed to PAH                  (1) Fin and gill erosion
      (Hargis, W.J., et al., 1994; Roberts,         contaminated sediments in laboratory         (2) Integutmental lesions
      M.H., et al., 1989)                           systems.                                     (3) Pancreatic and liver alterations
                                                                                                 (4) Reduced hemocrits
                                                                                                 (5) Mortalities

      Spot, Hogcliokers                             Immune system measurements of                Macrophage phagocytosis (immune
      (Weeks, B.A., et al., 1986; Weeks,            species collected in areas                   system function) reduction; reversal
      B.A. and J.E. Warriner, 1984;                 contaminated with PA-Hs.                     upon exposure to uncontaminated
      Warriner, J.E., et al., 1988)                                                              water.

      Oysters                                       Healthy specimens transplanted in the        Rapid PAH uptake (bioaccumulation)
      (Huggett, R.J., et al., 1987)                 Elizabeth River.

      Hogchokers, Toadfishes, Spot,                 Health condition of field collected          (1) Fin erosion
      Croaker, Weakfish                             fish in PAH contaminated areas.              (2) Eye lens cataracts (spot, croaker,
      (Bender, M.E., et al., 1988; Hargis,          Laboratory exposure to water from               weakfish)
      W.J. and D.E. Zwerner, 1988)                  PAH contaminated sediments.                  (3) Skin ulcerations

      Spot                                          Metabolism of PAH in juvenile fish           Higher metabolic enzyme levels
      (Roberts, M.H., et al., 1987; Van             collected in PAH contaminated areas.         resulting in increase of toxic
      Peld, P.A.,et al., 1990)                                                                   oxidation products.

      Mummichog                                     Physiological condition of fish              (1) Hepatic lesions
      (Vogelbein, W.K., et al., 1990)               collected in areas of PAH                    (2) Hepatocellular carcinomas
                                                    contamination.


      Grass shrimp, Copepads, Polychaetes           Laboratory exposure to contaminated          (1) Survival reductions in grass
      (Hall, L.W.Jr., et al., 1991)                 water and sediments.                            shrimp and copepods after
                                                                                                    exposure to ambient water.
                                                                                                 (2) 100% mortality in sediment tests
                                                                                                    using all three species.

      Muskrat                                       Health condition of field collected          (1) Nickel and selenium suspected in
      (Halbrook, R.S., 1990)                        specimens                                       reduced body and spleen weight.
                                                                                                 (2) PAH and metals, in tissues
                                                                                                 (3) DNA adduct detection (formed
                                                                                                    from exposure to carcinogens)

      Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphins                  Field collections of tissues of Virginia     Tissues contaminated with DDE,
      (Kuehl, D.W., et al., 1991)                   populations                                  dieldrin and PCBs. Insufficient
                                                                                                 evidence to determine impacts from
                                                                                                 the Elizabeth River.








                                                                                     Elizabeth River Restoratio                      86


                                                                          Table 1.2
                          Rare, Protected or Endangered Species Known to Frequent the Lower Chesapeake Bay
                                (Including the Elizabeth River Watershed) (Priest, J., 1995; Zylstra, S., 1995)


                                                                                     Federal                          Virginia
               Species                                                               Status                           Status


               Fish
                        Shortaose sturgeon                                           Endangered                       Endangered
                        Atlantic sturgeon                                                                             Threatened


               Inverebrates
                        Tidewater interstitial amphipod                              Species of Concern

               Herpetofauna
                        Atlantic loggerhead                                          Threatened                       Endangered
                        Atlantic green turtle                                        Threatened                       Endangered
                        Kemp's ridely turtle                                         Threatened                       Endangered
                        Atlantic leatherback                                         Threatened                       Endangered
                        Dwarf waterdog                                                                                Undetermined
                        Greater siren                                                                                 Undetermined
                        Northern diamondback terrapin                                Species of Concern

               Birds
                        Bald eagle                                                   Threatened
                        American peregrine falcon                                    Endangered
                        Arctic peregrine falcon                                      Threatened
                        Red-cockaded woodpecker                                      Endangered
                        Loggerhead strike                                            Candidate
                        Great blue heron                                                                              Species of Concern
                        Little blue heron                                                                             Species of Concern
                        Great egret                                                                                   Species of Concern
                        Black-crowned night heron                                                                     Species of Concern
                        Yellow-crowned night heron                                                                    Species of Concern
                        Least bittern                                                                                 Undetermined
                        American birtern                                                                              Undetermined
                        Glossy ibis                                                                                   Species of Concem
                        Sharp-shinned hawk                                                                            Threatened
                        Cooper's hawk                                                                                 Undetermined
                        Red-shouldered hawk                                                                           Species of Concem
                        Osprey                                                                                        Threatened
                        American kestrel                                                                              Threatened
                        Common moorhen                                                                                Undetermined
                        Piping plover                                                Threatened                       Threatened
                        Wilson's plover                                                                               Threatened
                        Upland sandpiper                                                                              Threatened
                        Gull-billed tern                                                                              Threatened
                        Forster's tern                                                                                Species of Concern
                        Least tem                                                                                     Species of Concern




                                                                                       Elizabeth River Project WatershedAction Team







                                                                        -Elizabeth River Restoration               97







                     Sources of Toxics:
                      A Comparison of Point Source and Stormwater Input


                                              Synopsis of a keyfindingfrom a source identification performed by
                                      URS Consultants, 1995, as a background reportfor the Toxics Reduction
                                      Team of the Watershed Action Team. URS identified sources of toxic inputs to
                                      the Elizabeth River and Willoughby Bay, including estimated amountsfrom
                                      permittedfacilities (point sources) andfrom stornnvater runoff (non-point
                                      sources). Full report is available separately.


                     Heav Metals
                           Y

                                              The combined total metals loading to the Elizabeth River from point
                                      sources and stormwater runoff was estimated to exceed 100,000 lbs/year.
                                      Approximately 12 percent of the load is from point sources, whereas 88 percent of
                                      the load is a result of stormwater runoff. A few branches of the river experience
                                      situations where point source metals loadings exceed those due to stormwater
                                      runoff. 'Mere are only four river segments where point source loads exceed
                                      stormwater loads.
                                              Figure I compares the point source and stormwater total metals loadings
                                      in each branch of the Elizabeth River. This figure shows that by comparison, the
                                      Main Branch (EL), the Western Branch (WB), and the Lafayette River (LF)
                                      receive the lowest combined total loads. The Southern Branch (SB) receives the
                                      highest total metals loading in the river due to the high degree of imperviousness
                                      and the numerous industrial point sources located within the branch. The Eastern
                                      Branch (EB), ranked second highest in total metals load, is significantly impacted
                                      by stormwater.

                     Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

                                      The combined PAH loading to the Elizabeth River from point sources and
                                      stormwater runoff is estimated to exceed I million lbs/year. Less than I percent
                                      of the PAH load can be attributed to permitted point sources, while more than 99
                                      percent is estimated to be the result of urban stormwater runoff.
                                              Figure 2 compares the point source and storrawater total PAH loadings in
                                      each branch of the Elizabeth River. Note that essentially all of the PAHs currently
                                      entering the Elizabeth River originate as stormwater runoff. Figure 2 also
                                      indicates that the Main Branch (EL), the Western Branch (WB), and the Lafayette
                                      River (LF) receive the lowest inputs of PAHs. This is not surprising since the
                                      land use within the drainage areas of the Western Branch and the Lafayette River








                                                                                                     _9N_

                                                               Flizabeth River Restoration            . 11 88


                          consist primarily of residential areas. The highest loadings of PAHs are to the
                          Southern Branch (SB) and Eastern Branch (EB) of the Elizabeth River where
                          commercial lid industrial land use is highly concentrated. It is important to note
                          ihat the total PAH load to the river is more than ten times the total metals load,
                          since PAHs account for 15 of the 20 top ranked pollutants based on the results of
                          the contaminant ranking system described previously. Copper and zinc are the
                          only two metals included in the top 20 contaminants of concern.

        Methodology

                                  To identify potential point and nonpoi@t sources responsible for
                          contamination in the Elizabeth River watershed, links were established between the
                          receptors (sediments, ambient water and biota) and the potential sources of the
                          toxic inputs. One of the primary tools used to establish the link between problems
                          in the Elizabeth River and sources of toxic inputs in the watershed involved a
                          geographic information system (GIS). The GIS combined digital mapping of the
                          study area with database information concerning the watershed, the distribution of
                          problematic contaminants within various sections of the watershed, and potential
                          point and nonpoint sources of the contaminants of concern.
                                  The source identification of toxic inputs to the Elizabeth River included
                          estimates of toxic loadings from permitted facilities (point sources) and from
                          stormwater runoff (nonpoint sources). Although specific loadings were quantified
                          for each of the individual metals and several of the polynuclear aromatic
                          hydrocarbons (PAHs), the results are categorically 'presented and primarily
                          discussed in terms of "total metals" and "total PAHs".
                                  Although the contaminants of concern in the Elizabeth River watershed
                          include PCBs, TBT, and DDT, it was not possible to readily quantify current
                          loadings for these contaminants. Therefore, these toxics were not specifically
                          evaluated in terms of current loadings from specific sources. PCBs and DDT are
                          no longer used commercially in the United States and inputs to the river are
                          predominately historical in nature.

        Point Sources
                          Point sources, as defined herein, refer to the nature of the discharge origin. While
                          ï¿½ great deal of stormwater runoff enters the river via storm drains, it is considered
                          ï¿½ non-point source since its origin is areal in nature. Point sources consist
                          principally of permitted industrial, municipal, and federal waste treatment and
                          management facilities discharging to the river.
                          A database of point sources was developed for 74 permitted facilities discharging
                          to the Elizabeth River. Discharge monitoring flow data and effluent
                          concentrations were used to estimate the annual toxics load to the Elizabeth River
                          for each facility. Once the loadings were calculated for the various facilities, the
                          toxic inputs were summed for the respective river segments.
                                  Monthly flow data were available from Discharge Monitoring Reports
                          (DMR) compiled by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for all
                          permitted facilities. Concentration data were available for 25 of the permitted
                          dischargers using information collected under the DEQ Toxics Management








                                                                     Elizabeth River Restor ion


                                  Program (TMP). Available TMP concentration data for facilities with the same
                                  Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code were applied to other facilities
                                  without concentration data in that SIC code. Through this process, a total of 33
                                  permitted point sources were assigned concentration data. Point sources having no
                                  TMP data and no facilities of similar SIC code were not assigned concentrations.

                 Storinwater Runoff Loadings

                                          The major sources of toxics found in urban stormwater runoff include:
                                  compounds formed during the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels; products of
                                  metal alloy corrosion; products of automobile use; pesticides; industrial
                                  manufacturing products and raw materials; and atmospheric deposition. Land use
                                  activity, percentage of impervious surface area, rainfall patterns and intensity,
                                  density of automobile traffic, and the extent of air pollution are all factors that
                                  affect the quantity and quality of urban runoff. Pollutant loadings for over 2000
                                  individual land areas in the watershed were developed using the methodology
                                  which follows.
                                          Estimates of urban runoff pollutant loadings were developed using a load
                                  estimation model known as the Simple Method (Schueler, 1987). The Simple
                                  Method relates rainfWl, land use, drainage area, and pollutant concentration to the
                                  annual loading. Load estimates were developed on the basis of land use categories.
                                          The primary determinant of stormwater runoff volume is the impervious
                                  fraction of the land. Schueler (1987) empirically determined that the fraction of
                                  annual precipitation converted to stormwater runoff is a linear function of the
                                  percent imperviousness. The more intensely developed areas have the highest
                                  degree of imperviousness, and, therefore, the greatest potential for runoff-derived
                                  pollutant loadings. Without the benefit of actual measurements, impervious
                                  surface area within each drainage basin was inferred ftom the land use.
                                          The event mean concentrations (EMCs) of toxic pollutants were derived
                                  from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Priority Pollutant
                                  monitoring project, from a review of the literature (Olsenholler, 199 1), and from
                                  regional data from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
                                  stormwater permit applications.







                                                                                  Figure 1. Total Metals Loadings
                                                                                               (By River Segment)



                                            10





                                            8

                                   ,Z@



                                        tn  6


                                        Cn
                                   Cfj  ::1
                                   0    0
                                       1-   4
                                   Cn





                                            2


                                                                               L3                                                                U
                                                  Uj                          --F      NA-Ul LF6+            BI      B      B      D      D2     B4      2     S138 S 10+ -131         B3 eB5+
                                                        @Ll)                                  F4
                                                                        Uj
                                                          13)
                                                 L        LJ
                                                         L
                                                    ELI    EL3     EL5    ED      LFI    LF3    LF5 WBO W132 W134 W136+ SBI                 S133    S135   SB7     SB9    EBO    EB2     EB4
                                                                                                             River Segment


                                                                                                       Point Sources F- I Stormwater






                                                                  Figure 2. Total PAH Loadii.igs
                                                                          (By River Segment)



                                150




                                125




                                100
                         A,


                                 75
                            0



                                 50




                                 25
                                   0   JI-0 _U
                                                                             'IF6+   D          D    BC   SB2
                                                                             L                                             S138
                                                                                                                S04  SB           10+ IBF@
                                           EL)  @J                                                                              S      @-- I  B   EB5--
                                        ELI   EW   EL5   EL7   LPI   LF3  LF5 WBO W112 W114 WB6+ SBI         S133  SB5  S137  S139  EBO   EB2   EB4
                                                                                     River Segment


                                                                                Point Sources       Stormwater







                                              F187abeth River Restoration   92












                               E

                                EU

                                       U
                                          L
                                         @
                                      ........... .



                                EU


                                                       LF6

                                                           EB
                       4          B2          B         1EB2            EBS
                                                                B


                  WB                         B




                                        SB4
                                                  136
                                          S


                                           SB
                                                     S'B               ETALS (LBSNR)
                                               B                      = 0 - 495
                                                        SB1 0              495 - 945
                                                                           945 -1910
                                                                           1910 - 4251
                                                                           4251 - 8738









                       Total Metal Loadings (lbs/yr) from Permitted Facilities
                       and Storm Water Run-off.







                                               Mi7mbeth River Restoration 93

















                                                                      A

                                 EU


                                                        LF

                                w

                                                             B

                                   WB2                  4
                                                         EB2    B

                          WB6                       2
                                             B


                                          SB4     B5




                                                    B               PAHS (LBSNR)
                                               B                        0 - 2364
                                                       SBIO             2364-9657
                                                                        9657- 17580
                                                                        17580-49820
                                                                        49820-127253









                          Total PAH Loadings (lbs/yr) from Permitted Facilities
                          and Storm Water Run-off.







                                                                Flizabeth River S&storation           94


                                 Bibliography


                                            Reports in conjunction with development of this plan

                                 Alden III, Ph.D., Raymond W.and Joseph G. Winfield, Applied Marine Research
                                 Laboratory, Old Dominion University, Defining the Prob a The Elizabeth
                                 River, A Region of Concern. Final Report Toward Completion of Chapter 4 in the
                                 Commonwealth of Virginia's Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan for Toxics
                                 Reduciton, Volume I and 2, May 24, 1995.

                                 Elizabeth River Project, Research Reports: Effectiveness, Affordability and
                                 Acceptability, for Elizabeth River Restoration.

                                        Water Quality Task Force
                                            "Reducing Contaminants from Residential Areas."
                                            "Structural BMP Retrofits."
                                            "Effectiveness of Maintaining BMP's."
                                            "Promoting Mass Transit and Alternate Transportation to Reduce
                                                Pollutants to the Elizabeth River: Draft Research Report."
                                            "Removal of Abandoned Vessels and Pilings from the Elizabeth
                                                River."
                                            "Improve Inadequate Sanitary Sewage Collection Systems."
                                            "Enhance Compliance with Existing Regulations."
                                             Non-Point Source Pollution Management Option - Reduce Runoff
                                                and Erosion Before it Reaches the River."
                                            "Sustainable Landscaping - A Management Option to Reduce
                                                Non-Point Source Pollution."
                                             Nutrients Task Force."
                                            "Enforcement of Existing Regulations."
                                            "Implementation Analysis for Items 15 and 17 of the Point Source
                                                Committee 'Laundry List'."
                                            "Preliminary Feasibility Study of Stonn Water Discharge
                                                Pretreatment from Industrial Facilities on the Elizabeth River."
                                            "All Point Sources in the Elizabeth River Watershed Develop
                                                Pollution Prevention Plans."
                                            "Implement Cooperative, Multi-Sector and Incentive-based
                                                Monitoring for Toxics and Nutrients in Effluent(s) and Ambient
                                                Water(s)."
                                             Reducing Improper Disposal and Releases from Commerical
                                                Enterprises"

                                        Sediment Quality Task Force
                                            "Final Report: Assure Best Management Practices at Craney Island."
                                            "Draft Effectiveness Evaluation, Proposed Options Regarding Craney
                                                Island Managment."








                                                 Elizabeth River Resto ation              95


                          "Press Responsible Agencies to Establish Sediment Quality Criteria
                              and Standards."
                          "Develop Marsh Islands Using 'Clean' Dredged Materials to Improve
                              Water and Sediment Quality of a Waterway and Restore
                              Habitat."
                            Remediate/Remove Contaminated Sediments."
                          "Improve Sediment Quality at Heavily Contaminated Sites."
                          "Shoreline Rehabilitation."
                          "Identify Sources of TBT and Remediate."
                          " Construction of Sediment Traps at Most Effective Sites."

                      Habitat & Living Resources Task Force
                          "Additional Research of Task Force Options: Establishment of
                                Baseline Information bank on Elizaeth River Watershed."
                          "Increasing Forested Areas."
                          "Increase Buffer Areas."
                          "Increase Pervious Surfaces."
                          "Vegetated Buffer Arm."
                          "Increase Wetland Acreage."
                          "Increase Public Access."
                          "Stormwater Management."

                      Toxics Reduction Team (see also Tecbnical Assessments..., 1995)
                            Promote and Recognize Pollution Prevention for Toxics and
                              Stormwater."
                          "Elizabeth River Monitoring Program and Databank."
                          "Enhancement of DEQ's Toxics Monitoring Capabilities."
                          "Support Regional Waterhed Planning."
                          "Develop and Implement Load Allocation Strategies."
                          "Establish Sediment Quality Standards."


              Elizabeth River Project, Elimbeth River- Dimensions Assessment and Ranking of
              Risks to the Ecosystem, Human Health and Quality of Life. August 1995.

              Elizabeth River Project, Technical Reports for Elizabeth Riverv Dimensions:
                          "Altered Hydrology in the Watershed. "John Carlock, Ray Stout,
                              Keith Cannady.
                          "Groundwater Contamination in the Elizabeth River Watershed."
                              Dennis Papa.
                          "Hazardous Materials Transport and Storage"
                          "Human Health Risks Associated with Pollution of the Elizabeth
                              River." Dr. Venita Newby-Owens, MD, MPH; Dr. Robert
                              Croonenberghs, Phl); Dr. Lewis J. Taylor, Phl).
                          "Committee Report, Loss of Habitat & Biota in the Elizabeth River,
                              Dr. Ray S. Birdsong, Mike Nickelsburg, Walter Priest.
                          "Non-Indigenous Species," Dr. Herbert Austin.







                                                                      Rlizabeth River Restuation               96


                                                "Non Point Source Runoff in the Elizabeth River Watershed," Gina
                                                    Dixon, John Carlock, Keith Cannady & Ray Stout.
                                                "Me Significance of Point Source Pollutant Loads in the Elizabeth
                                                    River System." William Hunley.
                                                "Sediment Quality and Sedimentation Processes." Dr. Raymond W.
                                                    Alden 111, John Blandin.
                                                "Water Quality: Vessel Discharge," Linda Cole, Harry Glenn, Brad
                                                    Balch, Mike Host.


                                     Elizabeth River Project, Water Quality task Force, Stressors Associated with
                                     Non Point Sources August 2, 1995

                                     Elizabeth River Project, Water Quality Task Force, Stressors Associated with
                                     Point Sources, August 2, 1995

                                     URS Consultants, Technical Assessments in Supliport of the Flizabah River
                                     Regional Action Plan Develoment Oct. 26, 1995.







                                                       Elizabeth River Restoratio                    97


                 Glossary

                 Alongshore Buffer Areas - Shoreline parks and walkways.
                 Altered Hydrology - Natural or man-made changes in the watershed that change
                 the existing water cycle relationships (evapotranspiration, precipitation, runoff,
                 cmd percolation).
                 Angle of Repose - Ability of sediments to maintain side slopes on an island.
                 Aquifer - Underground formations which allow groundwater to be stored and
                 accessed for use. Aquifers have a variable capacity to transmit water depending
                 upon type and size. Aquifers also allow for subsurface flow of groundwater from
                 areas of higher pressure to lower pressure and are filled by direct infiltration of
                 precipitation and surface water.
                 Atrazine - Organic compound used as a herbicide, plant growth regulator, and
                 weed-control agent.
                 Baffle Wave Energy - To deflect waves to that they are dissipated and have
                 minimal impact on the shoreline.
                 Benthic - Bottom-dwelling.
                 Benzene - Organic compound found in dry cleaning fluids, finnigants, gasoline,
                 insecticides, motor oil, paint remover, rubber cement, solvents, and spot
                 removers.
                 Best Management Practices - Recognized techniques used by industry to mitigate
                 the effect of pollutants on the river.
                 Biochemical Remediation - An on-shore treatment of contaminated sediments
                 removed from the river bottom in order to eliminate hazardous characteristics for
                 the sediment before reuse or disposal.
                 Bioassays - Toxicity tests performed in order to determine the impact of various
                 stressors upon a species representative to the ones found in the river.
                 Biochemical Oxygen Demand - A measure of the degradable organic compounds
                 which serve as a food source for microorganisms.
                 Biodiversity - Number of different animal and plant species which are essential
                 fDr an healthy environment.
                 Biological Uptake of Nitrates and Phosphorus - Process by which plants use
                 nutrients to produce food
                 Biota and Fauna - Plants and animals.
                 BMP - Best Management Practice
                 IIMP Retrofit - Structure or series of structures designed to mitigate the harmful
                 effect of human activity and development in an urban watershed.
                 BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
                 Capping - Placement of clean material over contaminated sediments to stop or
                 slow diff-usion of stressors into the water column and to prevent aquatic organisms
                 from coming into contact with the stressors.
                 CBPA - Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
                 Chlordane - Organic compound found in insecticides, oil emulsions, dusts, and
                 dispersible liquids.
                 C omposite Priority Pollutant Scans - Laboratory technique to detect all 129
                 priority pollutants usually performed when the source of the potentially hazardous
                 waste is unknown.









                                                                                                                        -Johm-

                                                                                 'Fli7abeth River Restoration                   98


                                            Conventional Pollutants - Natural or man-made substances that are undesirable
                                            in that they may lead to environmental degradation, for example, BOD, TSS, oil
                                            and grease, and pH.
                                            Cost-Benefit Ratio - Economic tool to compare the cost of a project with the
                                            benefit of the project to determine if it is cost effect to proceed with the project. A
                                            cost-benefit ration of less than 1.0 indicates that the benefits outweigh the costs.
                                            Creosote - Oily preservative used on wooden pilings.
                                            DDT - Acronym for an organic compound used in insecticides and pesticides.
                                            Department of Environmental Quality - Office within the Commonwealth of
                                            Virginia that is chartered to protect the natural resources within the
                                            Commonwealth for the citizens of the Commonwealth.
                                            DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
                                            Dimethylaminoethylene Dichloride - Organic compound used as a disinfectant in
                                            flow-through MSD
                                            Dioxin - Organic compound found as an impurity in a certain herbicide.
                                            Dissolved Phase Remediation Systems - Recommended treatment for removal of
                                            toxic pollutants. Because toxic pollutants are more toxic when dissolved in the
                                            water where they are more available for uptake and ingestion, treatment of this
                                            dissolved phase is critical for treatment of toxic pollutants.
                                            Dredging - A construction process (mechanical, hydraulic, or pneumatic)
                                            involving the relocation of river sediments for navigational purposes.
                                            Dry Ponds - Urban storm water runoff technique to capture runoff for
                                            stabilization and treatment prior to discharge into the river. A dry pond is
                                            designed to remain dry unless a storm event occurs.
                                            End of Pipe or End of Ditch Treatment - Treatment technique applied at the
                                            point where the waste leaves the pipe or ditch as a point source.
                                            ERP - Elizabeth River Project.
                                            Estuarine Food Web - Intricate balance between primary producers such as
                                            phytoplankton and secondary producers such as zooplankton as found in the river
                                            where it joins the ocean.
                                            Eutrophication - Process of stream degradation when a stream is rich in plant
                                            nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
                                            Fee Simple - Title
                                            Flow-Through Marine Sanitation Device - Treatment system aboard recreation
                                            boats that treats human sewage prior to discharge into the river.
                                            Flux - Flow.
                                            Formaldehyde - Organic compound used as a disinfectant in flow-through
                                            MSDs.
                                            Geotextile - A porous fabric of synthetic fibers.
                                            Grassy Swales - Low-lying area usually in paved areas which is used to mitigate
                                            the effects of storm water runoff.
                                            Groins - A small jetty extending from the shoreline which protects against erosion
                                            of the shoreline; also known as groynes.
                                            Ground Water Recharge - Infiltration into the ground water which acts to
                                            increase the level of the water table.
                                            Habitat - Place where plants and animals live.







                                                         Rli7.aheth River Restorati n                 99


                   Heavy Metals - Metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc with an atomic
                   number greater than 23.
                   Impervious Surfaces - Natural or man-made surfaces which impede the
                   infiltration of water into the ground , for example, roads, parking lots, driveways,
                   and roofs.
                   In Situ - Latin term meaning in place.
                   Infiltration - Process were rain water filters down through the ground into the
                   ground water.
                   Intertidal - Shallow area between the low-water mark and the high-water mark.
                   Mean Cross-Tidal Flow - Statistical term to identify the flow of water that runs
                   perpendicular to the tide.
                   Mg/Kg - Milligrams per kilogram (parts per million).
                   MSD - Marine Sanitation Device
                   Ng/L - Nanograrn per liter.
                   Nonpoint Source - Traditionally defined as diffuse sources of pollution that are
                   not traceable to a specific source. Storm water runoff is a typical example.
                   Nonpoint source runoff loadings largely are a function of land use. The more
                   intense the land use (i.e., population density, number of cars, percent pavement)
                   the higher the concentrations of pollutants in runoff and the higher the actual
                   volume of runoff.
                   NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
                   Nutrients - Pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus which encourage the
                   growth of algae. Excessive algal growth leads to depletion of oxygen in the water,
                   which is harmful to fish and may cause odor and aesthetics problems.
                   Outfall Locations - End of pipe or end of ditch locations for point source
                   discharges where NPDES permits may require sampling prior to discharge.
                   PAHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
                   Particulate Pollutants   Natural or man-made substances that remain as a solid in
                   the water and do not dissolve.
                   Pathogens - Organisms such as bacteria and viruses which causelsease.
                   PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyls
                   Percolate - Rate at which rainfall filters into the ground; usually measured as
                   inches per minute.
                   Phytoplankton Assemblages - Microscopic plants that serve as a major food
                   source for zooplankton, bottom dwellers, and young fishes. Phytoplankton are
                   major sources of photosynthesis.
                   Point Source - Discharge carried into the river via pipes and ditches. Unlike
                   nonpoint sources, the origin of the point source discharges are traceable to a single
                   site or process.
                   Pollution Prevention - Any effort to reduce the quantity of industrial, hazardous,
                   or toxic waste through changes in the waste generating or production process at
                   the source: reduce, reuse, recycle.
                   Polychlorinated Biphenyl's - Organic compound found in heat-exchange and
                   insulating fluids. Manufacture of PCBs was discontinued in the US in 1976.
                   Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Fossil fuel based combustion products
                   and by-products.







                                                                         Elizabeth River Restoration                100


                                        Pore Water - Water that is found in the microscopic spaces between the sediment
                                        particles.
                                        Priority Pollutant - One of 129 natural or man-made pollutants listed in one of
                                        six major categories: volatile organics, acid-extractable organics, base and neutral
                                        organics, pesticides and PCBs, metals, cyanides, and asbestos which are used to
                                        identify materials as hazardous materials.
                                        Quanternary Ammonium - Inorganic compound used as a disinfectant, cleanser,
                                        and sterilizer in flow-through MSDs.
                                        Rain Gardens - New concept for alternative storm water management combining
                                        grasses, shrubs, and trees to simulate a forest environment. This usually is done
                                        at the low point of a developed lot.
                                        Resource Management Area - RPA designated by individual locations for
                                        management of natural resources.
                                        Resource Protection Area - Includes tidal wetlands, tidal shores, nontidal
                                        wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or tributary
                                        streams.
                                        Riparian Areas - The river bank.
                                        Riprap - Broken stones or masonry.
                                        Riprap Revetments - Riprap used to mitigate the effect of tides or propeller
                                        wash.
                                        RMA - Resource Management Area
                                        RPA - Resource Protection Area
                                        SAV - Submerged aquatic vegetation
                                        Sediment - Organic and mineral matter that settles in the bottom of the river.
                                        Sedimentation - A natural process in estuarine ecosystesin whereby particulates
                                        settle in the bottom of the river. Its magnitude and impact is affected directly by
                                        human activities such as filling of tidal creeks and marshes, straightening and
                                        bulkheading of channels, and dredging of navigation channels.
                                        Sheet Flow - Excess rainfall that does not infiltrate into the ground flows in a thin
                                        sheet; also known as overland flow.
                                        Shoal Areas - Shallow areas.
                                        Siltation - Act of of filling in the river bottom with silt such as organic matter and
                                        sand.
                                        Soluble Pollutants - Natural or man-made substances which dissolve in water.
                                        Storm Water Runoff - Water that does not infiltrate into the ground during a rain
                                        event but flows into surface waters such as the river.
                                        Stressors - Natural or man-made substances such as heavy metals, BOD,
                                        pathogens, and pesticides which impact the quality of the river.
                                        Submerged Aquatic Vegetation - Includes all underwater plants. SAV serve as
                                        food sources, cover, and spawning areas for many species in the river.
                                        Surgical Hydraulic Dredging - Dredging done with an hydraulic dredge in order
                                        that the least amount of area be disturbed.
                                        Suspended Solids - Particulates that remain in the water and do not settle out or
                                        dissolve.
                                        Switcligrass
                                        Synergistic Effect - Occurs when the outcome is greater that the sum of inputs.
                                        TBT - Tributyltin







                                                      Elizabeth Wyer Restoration                 101


                    TMDL - Total daily maximum load
                    Toluene - Organic compound found in gasoline, solvents, resins, most oil, rubber,
                    and saccharin.
                    Total Daily Maximum Load - Amount of a pollutant that can be assin-filated by
                    the receiving stream and can be predicted not to cause an exceedance of a
                    particular water quality standard.
                    Total Suspended Solids - Laboratory technique to detected suspended solids.
                    Toxic Pollutants - Natural or man-made substances that are undesirable in that
                    they may lead to environmental degradation because of their effects on marine life
                    even at low levels: example, heavy metals, organic compounds, and pesticides.
                    Tributyltin - Paint antifoulant used in on boat hulls.
                    TSS - Total suspended solids.
                    Turbidity - A measure of the amount of suspended solids in the water which
                    makes the water appear cloudy.
                    Ug/L - Micrograms per liter.
                    Ultra-Urban BMPs - Techniques used in urban areas that are extensively
                    developed.
                    USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency.
                    Vegetated Buffer Areas - Zone of natural, undeveloped land managed to lessen
                    the impact of adjacent land use and practice on water quality and usually is
                    considered to be ad acent to shoreline within 100 feet.
                    Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Regulation of the NPDES in
                    the Commonwealth of Virginia by the DEQ.
                    WAT - Watershed Action Team of the Elizabeth Rive Project
                    Water Column - Scientific technique to examine river water as viewed as a single
                    column of water rather than as the entire river.
                    Watershed - Surface land area within which all precipitation moves toward
                    internal drainage pathways such as streams, rivers, estuaries, and the ocean. A
                    watershed also is called the drainage basin. All rain and snow falling within the
                    watershed moves toward the river due to the topographic slope of the ground.
                    Win-Win - A management tool by which all interested parties come to consensus
                    on their objectives.
                    Xeriscaping - A water conservation technique using water-wise landscaping.
                    Xylene - Organic compound found in gasoline, solvents, adhesives, and rubber
                    cement.
                    Zooplankton Assemblages - Small animals such as crustaceans which feed upon
                    the phytoplankton and are the most important food source for secondary producers
                    such as fishes.







                                                                                  Elizabab River Re oration                       102


                                                 References cited (draft, paftial)

                                                       Alden, R. W. III and 1. Blandin. 1994. Committee Report: Sediment Quality
                                              and Sedimentation Processes. The Elizabeth River Project (Unpublished). Norfolk,
                                              Virginia.
                                                       Alden, R. W. III and J. G. Winfield. 1995. Defining the Problem: The
                                              Elizabeth River, A Region of Concern. Final Report toward completion of Chapter 4 in
                                              the Commonwealth of Virginia's Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan for Toxics
                                              Reduction (Submitted to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality).
                                                       Beaver County Transit Authority, 1994, "RFP For Mobility Manager Service".
                                              Rochester, NY.
                                                       Byrne, Robert J., Cut H. Hobbs III, N. Bartlett Theberge, Waldon R. Kerns,
                                              Mary Langeland, Janet Schied, Neal J. Barber and Randy J. Olthof. 1979. Shoreline
                                              Erosion in the Commonwealth of Virginia: Problems, Practices, and Possibilities.
                                              Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Va. 268 p.
                                                       Chesapeake Bay Program, 1990, Chesapeake Bay Area Public Access Plan,
                                              Annapolis, MD.
                                                       Chesapeake Bay Program, 1995, Chesapeake Bay and Susquehanna River
                                              Public Access Guide.
                                                       City of Norfolk, 1992, General Plan of Norfolk, January 28, 1992.
                                                       City of Norfolk, Virginia. Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                                              Permit. January 5, 1996.
                                                       Claytor, Richard, A. 1995. "Assessing the Potential for Urban Watershed
                                              Restoration." Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 1. No. 4. pg. 166-172.
                                                       Earth Designs Associates, Inc., Waterfront Access Study, City of Portsmouth.
                                                       Eric Lipton, Greater Access to Potomac Encouraged, Washington Post,
                                              November 30. 1995.
                                                       Garbisch, Edgar W. and Joanna L. Garbisch. 1994. Control of upland land
                                              erosion through tidal marsh construction on restored shores: Application in the
                                              Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay. Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.
                                              677-691.
                                                Gebhardt, Alicia M., and Greg Lindsey. "NPDES Requirements for Municipal
                                              Separate Storm Sewer Systems: Costs and Concerns." bblic Works, January 1993, p.
                                              40.
                                                       Hartigan, John, and Thomas George. "The Rain That's Plain Goes Mainly
                                              down the Drain." American City and Cowly, September 1992, p. 22.
                                                       King, Dennis and Curtis Bohlen. 1994. Estimating the Costs of Restoration.
                                              National Wetlands Newsletter. Vol. 16, No. 3. pp. 3-5,8.
                                                       Kittermaii, Sid. Stormwater Department, City of Portsmouth, personal
                                              communication January 16, 1996.
                                                       Lewis, Roy. R., III. Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities.
                                              CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.
                                                       Lint, Don. Stormwater Department, City of Norfolk, personal
                                              communication January 16, 1996.
                                                       Makower, Joel, 1992. The Green Continuter. Tilden Press, Bethesda,
                                              Maryland.
                                                       Mele, Andre, 1993. Pollutingfor Pleasure. W W Norton & Company, Inc.
                                              New York, NY
                                                       Meredith, Carl. President of the Lafayette-Winona Civic League,
                                              Norfolk. personal communication January 21, 1996.








                                                      Fliz.q eth River Restoration                   103


                          Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1983. Urban Runoff
                 in The W&jWrjLon Metropolitan Area. Final Report WasWadon, D.C. Area
                 Urban          PrQject.
                          Meyer, John and Gonez-lbanez, Jose, 198 1. Autos, Transit and Cities.
                 Hmard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
                          Nadis, Steve and MacKenzie, James, 1993. Car Trouble. Beacon Press,
                 Boston, MA.
                          Nichols, Maynard M., and Mary M. Howard-Strobel. 1991. Evolution of an
                 Urban Estuarine Harbor: Norfolk, Virginia. Journal of Coastal Research. Vol. 7. No. 3.
                 pp. 745-757.
                          Oakley, Monica M., and Carol L. Forrest. "The Clock Is Ticking to Comply
                 with New Storinwater Regulations." Water Environment & T=hnWojjj March 199 1,
                 p. 5 1.
                          Perciasepe, Robert. "Nonpoint Sources: The National Perspective." Wtcr
                 I, nvironment and Technology, September 1995, p. 48.
                          Schueler, Thoma R. 1992. DeajW of Stormwater Wetland Syate=s
                 g3jidefines for ergating diverse and effective stormwater wetlands in the
                 idd-Atlantic Region Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
                          RoadIcy, Jr., C.R. 1992. Shoreline Development BMP's: Best Management
                 Practices for Shoreline Development Activities Which Encroach in, on, or over
                 Virginia's Tidal Wetlands, Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and Beaches, and Submerged
                 Lands. p. 54. VA Marine Resources Commission, Habitat Management Division, NPN,
                 VA.
                          Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Control Program, 1992. Source Identified
                 and Control Report. Woodwad Clyde Consultants,
                 Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1988, Waters of
                 Southeastern Virginia, An Inventory and Analysis of Public Access.
                          Technical Note 48. "Stonnwater Retrofits - A Tool for Watershed
                 Enhancement." Watershed Protection Techniques Vo I. I No. 4. pg. 188-191.
                          Tidewater Regional Transit, 1995. "Regional Transportation Demand
                 Management Program" (Draft). Norfolk, VA.
                          Unger, MA., Unpublished data. VIMS monitoring of TBT concentrations in
                 water samples from the Elizabeth River, VA collected in July and September 1986 and
                 June 1995.
                          Unger, MA, WG Maclntyre & RJ Huggett, 1988. Sorption behavior of
                 tributyltin estuarine and freshwater sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7: 907-915.
                          URS Consultants. 1995. Tmbnical Assessments in Support of the
                 Elizabeth River Regional Action Plan Development
                          U.S. Department of Transportation, FHA, No Date. The National Bicycling
                 aid Walking Study, Final Report. Washington, D.C.
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
                 Information. 1991. Handbook7 Remgidiation of Contiminated I%ed*ment,-.
                 EPA/625/6-91/028. Cincinnati, Ohio.
                          Valkirs, AO, PF. Seligman, J.G. Grovilioug, RL. Fransham, B. Davison and LL
                 Kear. 1992. US Navy Statutory Monitoring of Tributyltin in Selected US Harbors.
                 Annual Report: 1992.
                          Wright, Charles, 1992. Fastwheels, Slow Trajjic: Urban Transportation
                 Choices. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
                             -  . Summer, 1994. "Developments in Sand Filter Technology to
                 Jinprove Stormwater Runoff Quality." Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 1,
                 No.2 Center for Watershed Protection. pg. 47-54.













                                                                                                                                                                                            HUIN:G THEIR PHIL/Cl:


 4Y
 21,1996

                                SERVING SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA AND NORTHEASTERN NORTH                                                CAROLINA                      131st *A No. 214
                                                                                     to- save

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Up I i kely grou p
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ked 4 yea.fs.@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  wor
 ifing'Nautic'us
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  on voluntary
                                                            "Act
 morks                          its.budsut                                                                                                                                                                        way@ to ease,@,..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  pollution
     make                       ends'                   'meet,                                                                                                                                                    1W Uan HMPM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  STMF MUTER
                                               short supply.                                                                                                                                                        NOMLK - After four years pf
 itors, revenue are in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  debate wul negotiation, an un"
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  coalition of citizens, business
 M MMSHAU                                      plement*paymema on &35                                                                                                                                             tives, naval off[cm and -,ez=
 WPJTER                                        million in bonds sold to                                                                                                                                           mentalists released a plan
                                               build the attraction. It also                                                                                                                                      to begin cleaning
 the second year in a                          applies the taxes Nauticw                                                                                                                                          up the desperate-
 fauticus, is bringing                         pays to Norfolk - roughly
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ly polluted Eliza
 mr people and less                            $5W,000 annually - to the                                                                                                                                          herb Ri-
 r than it did in its                          debt payments instead of                                                                                                                                             The 18-p.inl
 us season.                                    the city treastiry. .                I:k                                                                                           7                               plan 'written by
                                                 David I Guernsey, Nau-                                                                                                                                           the Elizabeth
         M                      IswM                                                                                                     Ehmlxffi Rive







 ti-dgetrroi .1afli it.0                       ticus's president since
 ance and revenue                              January, said Thursday
 month this year            q think this       that the key to turning the                                                                                                                                        goals through
 ,-st of. year-round            Place Is I     facility around is getting                                                                                                                                         2010 to revive U16
                                                                                                                                                                                                 X                                     .1hdr1es0K"tt:
 101L                                          citizens. to appreciate the                                                                                                                                    jyfijis@oric owgter      . . . . . .
 pite %ig!tgpen dur-            90ing !0'-*    ittraction more.                                                                                                                                                   way, which.'h;@, -Ev6'th.
              5                                      think this place is                                                                                                                                          helpqd define most hor                ;Z'
 nter           for the   @Ork, Out it's         7
 ime   this year; the
                                               going to work, but its not                                                                                                                                      z Hampton Roadi         rivers cap
 ship-gray' building       not gpiflg'tO,.     going       to       happen                                                                                                                                        M an ifiternation-   be brought@,-,
 !Om@ UP @t I.east              happen         overnight." Gucmsey.swid:                                                                                                                                          al pf)rt and indm-   b a c k . . . `_` li@ -





                                                               ;ERVING SOUTHEASTERN VIRGINIA AND NORTHEASTERN NORTH CAROLINA                                                                          J[31it "I
                                                               ts                                                   to-save

                                                                                                                         HIGNUGHTS                                                                                                                         @@Iikelygro
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          PP 'k
                                                                                                                         Critical                                                                                                                          worked 4 y6ars,,*
                                                               auticus                                                   needs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           @-oh-vp untary-,---
                                                                                                                         identified
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ..,,way& o,ease
                                                               its           budget                                      by the Eliz.                                                                                                            J,                    t
                                                                                                                         abeth River                             __z, - i                                                                                                                 WK 1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           16fiti6h
                                                                                                                         Project
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           P
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           BY.SCOT*
                                                               ends meet                                                 watershed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           STAFF MUM.
                                                                                                                         action                 F
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           NO  RFOLK                               bf I
                                                               are in        short supply.                               team:                  L,                                                                                                         debate and negotiatioia@ arx,','imlikQ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          esa
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           coalition of cid=nS,
                                                                             plement payments on SM                                                                                                                                                        tives, I naval office;,
                                                                                                                         0 Reduce
                                                                             million in bonds sold to                                                                                                                                                      mentalists released a p
                                                                             build the attraction. It also                                                                                                                                                 to'begiri,cleailng.
                                                                             applies the taxes Nauticus                  sediment                                                                                                                          up the deipi1i!!7,'
                                                                                                                         contamina-                                                                                                             i@;_       @ly polluted Ellzd@.
                                                                             =,0t000'4.0r"ua'Uy 7:2                                                                                                                                           t7:          beth River.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           4
                                                                             debt payments instead of                    tion.                                                                                                                             ..Th
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               e,-1 18-polnt@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              "written I by
                                                                             the city treasury.                                                                                                                                                            11
                                                                                 David T Guernsey, Nau.                  0 Increase                                                                                                                        the,; Elizabeth,
                                                                             ticus's president since                                                                                                                       L" -
                                                                             January, said Thursday                                                                                                                                                                  ect sets
                                                                                                                         wetlands,                                                                                                                         broad,,.. voluntary
                                                               hink this     that the key to ti!uodng@ the                                                                                                                                                        Ahrough
                                                                             facility around is getting                                                                                                                                                    2010jo revWe the
                                                               11ace Is                                                  vegetated
                                                                             citizens to appreciate the                                                                                                                                                    historic ., water.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                which 'has- 'Ewlian'thi,*-
                                                               Ding to       attraction more.                            buffers and                              r7-*                                                                                     wail
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           @help d define mostti6
                                                                                    think this place is
                                                               k, but Ws         "l                                                                                                                                                                            e                          pleass
                                                                             go  .  to work, but it's not                forested                                                                                                                          Hampton - Roadi                rivers
                                                                             g o'iffg     to       happen
                                                               going to                                                                                                                                                                                    as an internation-             be broughf'-*@
                                                                             overnight," Guernsey said.                  areas.                                                                                                                            al port and indus-             back
                                                                                 The center has reduced                                                                                                                                                    4trial center.
                                                               iappen
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Z,,* Tbi -plan was             seal@d "with -, tire
                                                               @rnlgbt.      prices for an all-encom-                    0 Engage                                                                                                                          signing of a "Declaration ofInfer' .
                                                               )avid T       passing ticket from $14 to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           dependence" by several locaYm4j-
                                                               iuernsey,     $10.95. That meant, how-                    in pollution                                                                                                                      bis,divieleaders '6'0*ratc exc6:
                                                                             ever, elinlinating 'a $7.50
                                                               4auticus      general admission ticket                    prevention                                                                                                                              state - ;@@ent,officiaR'
                                                               sresident                                                                                                                                                                                   Navy and Army officers. lt'ple4a,
                                                                             that did not include some
                                                               ,et                                                                                                                                                                                                supp
                                                                  of the most popular attractions.                                                                                                                                                         Arturt "    ai@ and "ur6es fft,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           V;" thailia -of"               V-1
                                                                                                                                                                                          NV-@ rv                                                            r6storat@iWiFerts in the futur
                                                                                                         sell            and sus-
                                                               ity     Nauticus has pushed to                            tainable
                                                                  annual rn@mberships, something                                                                                                                                                                    -or
                                                                                                                                                ,4,                                                                                                        @-iegiAatlon
                                                               he other museums,,, zoos 'and science                     landscap
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -!-@74mfflnffldied acti - ffbm@
                                                               ra, centers around the country have                                                                                                                                                                                        on-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           and interests across the polidW
                                                                  found important.                                       ing.
                                                                                                                                                                                      40,
                                                               $1                                                                                                                                                                                          spectrum - to reduce new PoU64A
                                                               lp-           Please see Nautkus, fte AS                                                                                                                                                    !now*preolaxit fbresti.and-wedshO,
                                                                                                                         N Reduce                                                                                                                          J!curb,airty runoMhornturmea-21114
                                                                                                                         pollution
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           eduhhdorlsils                  vee. sedirnenW
                                                                                                                                                                                                                x                                          [email protected] In rl
                                                                                                                         from
                                                                                 e-1,
                                                                       7,1                                               stormwater                                                                                                                                                       e
                                                                                                                         runoff.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          64
                                                                                                                         0 Establish
                                                                       ,MAY              Apo
                                                                                                                         an Eliza-
                                                                             bom,

















                                                                       $299.,'          $292                             beth River
                                                                                                                         monitoring
                                                                                                  APR
                                                                                                 @q
                                                                                                   '96
                                                                                                  $153                   progam                                                                                                                            IT
                                                                                 MAY                                     and data
                                                                                                                         bank.
                                                                                 '96
                                                                                 N/A
                                                                                                                         -------------






                                                                                                                                           i r* for and a Navy shipyard
                                                                                                                                                                                   government land users in the watephed by.thq year.20051,@, 6`
                                                                                                                                           eworks on nuclear-powered               S. Reduce pollution from stormwater runoff to.th                        ',-maxfmum_@                                                           v
                                                                                                                                           hips.                                   practical extent.
                                                                                                                      USellfish harvesting has been                                7. Identify and c              ct I adlequalt;nItary'61 ectlon'systeri@ i
                                                                                                                                           ed since 1925 because of thick                                               s., 6 1                            from fecal coliforT
                                                                                                                                                                                   reduce human hl`@0.11rlllfil risk                  @d ogical risu')
                                                                                                                                           And swimming                                                                                            -       - @- ? @ -@-- @
                                                                                                                                           e Elizabeth           in much           bacteria [A the Elizabeth River.                                                                                          Sign          LIP forthe                      i
                                                                                                                                                 is considered a
                                                                                                                                           risk, especially      in the highly     il. Reduce TPT- the ship-hull paint Ingredient atminimizes
                                                                                                                      to                   matized Eastern and South-              barnacle enceustation - to non-toxicilevels In the Elizabeth River!:                                                                          and we'll give
                                                                                                                                           es
                                                                                                                      j.;t-1h              .                                       waters and sfidimen@,@whlfe enhancing th4 60iiortunity f0f:
                                                                                                                                           ... of                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                           the more eye-opening                    continued competiffireness of Virg nia's.shipping;.shipbulldipg and                                          I, ;i
                                                                                                                      *Mations from research conduct-                              Other related businesses.
                                                                                                                      g3n P-P=9 the Plan is that                                   9. Promote mass transit and alt@rnate transportation, based.on                                               ,a
                                                                                                                                           water0
                                                                                                                                               fir - from stmts,                   recognition of autorhotive usage'as a major @ource of pollution In
                                                                                                                      11;fis, storm drains and parking                             the Elizabeth River.1
                                                                                                                      fflr- is as much to blame as any                             10. Enhance compliance wiKexistirig regulations;
                                                                                                                      edipte-breathing factory.
                                                                                                                                           think a lot of people came into         U. Enhance marketability of Hampton Roads through achieving a'
                                                                                                                                           with some preconceived no-              cleaner environment, working with localities and the Chamber of
                                                                                                                                                                                   Commerce's Plan 2007.
                                                                                                                                           about what's killing the river,"
                                                                                                                                           Mike Host head of the envi-             12. Increase public access to the Elizabeth River for the pur                                                Of
                                                                                                                                                                 e Norfolk                                                                                                  p
                                                                                                                                           Intall division at th                   Increasing appreciation of the river and support for restoratkkn!s@
                                                                                                                                           Shipyard.."But a lot of@tfie            d. ReririDve abandoned vessels and pilings, where possible also
                                                                                                                                           dustries, the ):Irig sources, are
                                                                                                                                                                                   coriserving orreplacing habitat.                                                                                                                         .7
                                                                                                                                           y regulated already.
                                                                                                                                           a I think a lot of people came          M Establish and maintain im Elizabeth River monitoring program
                                                                                                                                           with a better understanding             and data bank to provide the scientific foundation for protecting
                                                                                                                                           probably what we put on                 restoring and sustaining living resources and human health In tRe,
                                                                                                                                                                           our
                                                                                                                                           lawns is causing much of the            Elizabeth River. watershed.
                                                                                                                      fo'blem now," Host said.                                     1S. Determine the ecological effects of Craney Island operations on
                                                                                                                                           wit: More than 500,000 peojfle          the Elizabeth River, with the purpose of reaching consensus among
                                                                                                                                           within the Elizabeth's 300-             interested parties about best management practices and
                                                                                                                                           le watershed, connibut-                 remediation needs. Craney Island is a repository for dredge spoils.
                                                                                                                                           fill of gallons of sewage to            16. Develop and implement a1oad allocation approach" as a
                                                                                                                                           0 a
                                                                                                                                           ver, plus pesticides and fertil-        voluntary tool for making more Informed, most cost-effective
                                                                                                                                           from lawns and gardens, and             decisions on how to manage the Elizabeth River.
                                                                                                                      dWhmoff from streets and par"                                17. Develop a nutrients task force to establish Elizabeth River                                                                                    in
                                                                                                                                                                                   nutrient goals and bases for goals, and to recommend control'.
                                                                                                                                           e progress has been made in             measures needed to achieve goals.
                                                                                                                                           years - sea birds are back              3S. Build strong partnerships between the Elizabeth River Project
                                                                                                                                           ter numbers and dolphins
                                                                                                                                           seen swimming inside the                and all public and private authorities relevant to this plan, for the.
                                                                                                                                           again, for example - much               purposes of ensuring public Input and support; achieving
                                                                                                                                           has to be done.                         errvironmental equity; and promoting speedy, effective,-.,
                                                                                                                                           'ect leaders say they have few          Implementation and enhancing regional watershed planning.
                                                                                                                                           s about restoring the Eliza-                                                                                                                                                                               r
                                                                                                                                                                              involved heri                       in the back-" ronn                                                            Or ra in
                                                                                                                                           to its original form, as first                            more                                      iental         orgrin6tl
                                                                                                                                           by English explorers in the        ground, offering iechnical advice                       Washington.
                                                                                                                                           n
                                                                                                                                           ry
                                                                                                                                           tu - a wide, lush and              grant money and research. -                                Even pr6ject leaders are irodous:
                                                                                                                                           :tidal basin teeming with fish          -me move was Intend                                Asked if the Elizabeth can be. kd..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Y_`
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Iously cleaned up :withouk sHcter Z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      an
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  '     ' T
                                                                                                                                                                              =1 1@do in         OrtsI; t.en      In
                                                                                                                                           the cl                ck It far           . to       the   .           ati5nd 1;           regulations; and ifie.threat- of gov.                     -Ji
                                                                                                                                           d.strippi             the river of promote what she described as "a @                      erinnent sanctions looming ov'er'_the@,,
                                                                                                                                           inse indus * and ca   ercial       baftom-up appmach@ to solving &I@                       heads,of would-be pdUute,ri,?Mayr,
                                                                                                                                           lopment, which also he          to community problem.                                      field smiled. -
                                                                                                                                                                 of South          ,                                                                1. 1
                                                                                                                                           nomic Ufebl                                                                                   "Thatt's. a       good " qu-                           :,shii-
                                                                                                                                           Roads.
                                                                                                                                           tead, the project seeks to in-          Whether 96 amtkiftre; tak can                      said; "We beiiainly hope; 60P. Arid 1,
                                                                                                                                           spect and sensitivity for the      be accomplished without the pow-                        can tell Yad we're certainly goI4 to
                                                                                                                                           as a natural system and to         erful hand of government leading                        try."                                                                          (Feel like you're.,
                                                                                                                                           its decimated ecology in           the way remains an open question.                          Robert -Hala, . an envimnr@fantal[
                                                                                                                                                                           a  Many conservation groups believe                        chemist and associate professor eff'f;'
                                                                                                                                           gradual way that does not          that@ at best a river cleanup needs                     the Virginia Institute of Marine Sd.',,*,
                                                                                                                                           gle economic growth, ex.                                                                                                                             1-1.
                                                                                                                                           d Marjorie Mayfield, a fo@         both a tough government presence                        ence                    participated inithell",
                                                                                                                                           alist who now coordinates          and a committed community.                              'prol                em   the ci                          -led ef-@'it S J-1 -i,                         @,-Y P-pl, 'M All
                                                                                                                                           izabeth River Project.                  Without either, the groups said,                   fort will lead to significant improve. 4n:,
                                                                                                                                                                              results are often blurred.                              ments. But he remains a realist.
                                                                                                                                           has bem the hm&nark of the.             "Action - be pushed by citizens'                      "I think what well see is that                                  btler'expires 7/21.1,080 local free minutes on $54.95 bt.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         severe@
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         minutes on $39.95 plan. 360 local free m1iiines on $24.95
                                                                                                                      re,                  @-roots projue        ch        ble-    and should be pushed by citi-                      them will elways be                                       de,-' '
                                                                                                                                                                 c itSI    ble tens. But a weak state or local gov-                   graded sections of the i.                                 US     -distributed over a 24 month period. New one year activatie
                                                                                                                                                                 'tChe
                                                                                                                                               ct
                                                                                                                                               nd
                                                                                                                                           91,
                                                                                                                                           ration and consens a               eminent presence can only hope to                       as the Southern Branch, Hate said.                        4.                Other restrictions may apply. FLIP PHONE Is a trad.
                                                                                                                      are at the heart of the plan.                           produce a holding pattern, we've                        "But I also think other sections can                      11
                                                                                                                                           Government agencies, which tm-     found," said Victor McMahan, di-                        be Improved, and improved quite                           . I                             Or look for other gred deals of thme GTE MobiInv
                                                                                                                      ditionally have spearheaded such                        rector of urban rivers programs for                     extensively, to the satisfaction of                                           Audkovie, Qelk!@r. &J's Getfuler Center. Prghtert Autosour,4, Pric
                                                                                                                      cleanup campaigtr@ elsewhere, are                       American Rivers, a national envi-                       even the most green of advocates."
                                                                                                                                           e
                                                                                                                      lion,
                                                                                                                                           y



                                                                                                                      Wt
                                                                                                                      Iffire-nd
                                                                                                                                           In
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            M
                                                                                                                                           It
                                                                                                                      W.,
                                                                                                                                           be
                                                                                                                      Rif
                                                                                                                                           i
                                                                                                                      wMi
                                                                                                                      Man




                                                                                                                                           hellfish.
                                                                                                                                           turn ock be
                                                                                                                                           require trial         ing
                                                                                                                      doe
                                                                                                                      M eco                                      oDd
                                                                                                                                           1AP
                                                                                                                      AWre
                                                                                                                      0.0                  "'
                                                                                                                      [-tle
                                                                                                                                           .it
                                                                                                                                           E
                                                                                                                                           J
                                                                                                                                           Journ




           Acknowledgements
                                   919P11'ec-lal Thanks to - Research Paper Authors
                  Diana Bailey                       Cheryl Copper.                    Leta Mitchell                Dr. Lewis "Jay"Taylor
                  Cherr@l Barnett                    James Daman                    Deborah Mosher                  Susan Taylor Hansen
             June Barrett-McDaniels.                Kenneth Dierks                  Mike-Nickelsburg                C.D. "Carl" Thomas
                    Lisa Billow                      Pam Ferguson                      James Nixon                   Claude Thompson
                  John Blandin                       Chris Fischer                     Randy Owen                      Mollie Wolcott-
                  Keith Cannady                      Dr. Carl Fi-sher                Marina Phillips,                  Ross Worsham
                   John Carlock                     Thomas Friberg.                    Walter Priest
                    Kim Coble                          Mike Host.                  Dr. Morris Roberts
                    Linda Cole                      William Hunley                   .-Eileen Rowan                        Glossary
                William Copeland                     Nancylbison                       David Sump                        Linda Cole

                                  Consultants                                            Action Team Even           It Sponsors
                            URS Consultaq_ts, Inc.                                              L angley & McDonald
                                 Lamont Curtis                                                Lewis J. Taylor & Assoc.
                              Michael Barbachem                                                    J.H. Miles & Co.
                                    Shelly Erie                                                    URS Consultants
                                Rebecca Sai@age                                                     City of Norfolk
                                    John Noles                                                     Norfolk Southern
                                   Jan Eliassen                                             Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                    Hatcher-Sayre, Inc. - John Hanscom                                     VA Environmental Endowment
             C.enter for Watershed -Protection - Tom Schueler                          'US Environmental Protection Agency
                        iacilitator      Elizabeth'Waters                            VA Department of Environmental Quality

                         Special Assistance
             US EPA Project Officer - Rodges Ankrah                         Elizabeth River Project Board of Directors
             VA DEQ Project Manager - Eileen Rowan
                                                                                   President - Ray E Moses, RADM (NOAA Ret.)
                                                                         Vice-President - Dr J. Frank Sellew, Deputy Superintendent, Norfolk'
                  Elizabeth River Project Staff                                                     Public Schools
                                                                           Treasurer - Katherine Cross, Attorney, Cooper, Spong, & Davis
                                                                         Secretary - Elizabeth A. Brichter, Junior Leagueof NorfoflrJVA Beach
                  Marjorie M, Mayfield, Coordinator
                                                                                Thomas L. Ackiss, Vice-Presid6m, Lyon Shipyard, Inc.
               Pamela- Boatwright, Admin: Assistant
                                                                                Sharon Q. Adams, Executive Director, VA Beach SPCA
                     Jessica Walker, Intern, ODU
                                                                          Cherryl- Barnett, Director of Environmental Programs, Naval Base
                     Jennifer Tuttle, Intern, ODU                              Jime Barrett McDaniels,' Engineer, Aquarius Engineering
                     DonaldMaishall, Volunteer                                 Keith Cannady, Enviromnental Engineer, Cityof Norfolk
                                                                         Robert K. Dean, Chairman, Clean the Bay Day, Inc.; VA Beach City,
                                    Art                                                            Council Member
               Photography - copyright Bill Tiernan.                                         Dr Carl Fisher (NOAA Ret.)
                                                                            Marilee Hawkins, Director of Environmental Services, City of
             Illustrations- -copyright Alice Jane Lippson.                                             Portsmouth
                                                                          Mike Kensler Hampton Roads Assoc. Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                                                                                       Richard H. LoW, President, TI Associates
                         Grassroots Support                                 Dr. Venita Newby-Owens, Health* Director, VA Dept. of Health
                    1996 Charter Membersh                                Walter Priest, Wetlands Scienti% Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
                                                       IP                John Van Name, Manager of Air & Water Compliance, Naval Amphib
                  of the Elizabeth River'Project                                                  Base - Little Creek
                                                                                                                                                J



                                                                                                                                         NOAA 0AsTA1,,[
                                                                                                                                                                CTR LIBRARY


                                        The WAtershed Action Teain                                                                      3    6568 14111961 2



                                  Me 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
                          ActiVeli and responsibly mana
                                                                          ged by an e6catdd citizenry and a partnership of river users.

                                                                                                                         Vision statement, June 12, 1995



             -President of the Board -                          Sedimen   't QuaW Task Force                           Mike Kenster, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                                                                Co-Chair- John Blandin, Geologist                      Dr. Susan B. Lipgenfelser, US Fish & Wildlife
          Ray E. M6s6s (RADM NOAA Ret.)                         Co-chair - Dr. Carl Fisher, NOAA (Retired)             Tyla Matteson, Sierra Club
        Oversight & Public Involvenwnt                          Dr. Raymond Alden 111, ODUApplied Marine Lab           Jack Wes, J. H. Miles & Co.
              Chabperson - Susan Cofer                          Dian.a Balley, US Army Corps of Engineers              James Pled, Hampton Roads Sanitation District
                                                                                                                       Dr. Morris Roberts, VA Institute Marine Science
                                                                Dr. David Basco, Old Dominion University               Ken Roller, VA Power
       Integration Team - Mike Barba6hem,                  -    William Copeland; NAACP                                Gary schafran, Old. Dominion University
       Keith Cannady, Dr Carl Fisher, Maijorie                  Dr. Daniel Daue@, Old Dominion University              Craig Seltzer, US Army Corps of Engineers
                Mayfield and David Sump                         Roger Evertpn, VA Dept of Environmental Quality        Louis Speas, Naval Facilities Engineering Comm.
                                                                Thomas Fdberg, US Army Corps of Engineers              Dr. Valerie Stallings, Norfolk Health Dept.
        Hunwn Health RePreSentatiVC-                            Hank Ghitti.., R.E. Wright Assoc.
                                                                                                                       Diana Starkey, Norfolk Convention & Visitors
                Dr )fenita Newby-Owens                          Susan Taylor Hansen, Cooper,   /Spong & Davis          Thomas Stokes, Stokes Environmental
                                                                Robert Harrell, Center for Innovative Technology       C.D. Thomas, VA Dept ofEnvirdtimental Quality
            Ways Ar Means Chairinan -                           Woody Holton, Waterways Surveys &-Engineering
                      John Van Name                             'William Huff, Hampton Roads Maritime Assoc.,          Claude Thompson, Consultant
                                                                E.L. Lash, River Shores Civic League                   Bernadette Woodhouse, Hoescht Celannese
                                                                Gregory Magnus, VA's Environment                       Steven C. Wright, City of Chesapeake
                                                                Nancy Merhige, Naval Amphib'Base - LC                  St.ephen Zylstra, US Fish & Wildlife Service
       Habitat & Living Resources Task Force                    James Nixon, Portsmouth Community Health               Water - Quality Task Force
       Co-Chair - Keith Cannady, City of Norfolk                -Randal Owen, VA Marine Resource Comin.
       Co-Chair - Marilee Hawkins, City of                      Dr. Mortis Roberts, VA Institute of Marine Science.    Co-Chair - Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay
                 Portsmouth                                     Dr. Lewis J. Taylor, Lewis Taylor & Assoc.                        Foundation
                                                                Claude Thompson, Consultant .           I @     -      Co-Chair - David Sump, Crenshaw, Ware & -
       Dutch Andrews, Shea Terrace Civic League                 Dudley Ware, Norfolk Dredging                                     Martin
       Gall BIradshaw, City of Chesapeake                       Ross Worsharn, Atlantic Wood Industries
       Dr. George Brown, Norfolk State University                                                                      Lt. Delano Adams, US Coast-Guard
                                                                                                                       Dr. Larry Atkinson, Ctr Coastal Physical Ocean
       Dr. Robert CreDnenberghs, VA Dept Health
       Phillip Davey, Davey Assoc.                              TOXICS Reductwn Team                                   Richard Ayerg, VA Dept Environmental 'Quality
                                                                Co-Chair - James Herndon, The Herndon                  Cherry] Barnett, Naval Base
       Kenneth A. Dierks, Langley & McDonald                    I -
       Commander John Doswell, US Navy                                    Group                                        June Barrett-McDanieb, Aquarius Engineen     .ng
       Tom Eaton, Portsmouth Parks & Recreation                 Co-Chair --Dr. J. Frank Sellew, Norfolk                Joanne Berkley, Bayeare
                                                                                                                       Lisa Billow, HSMM Environmental Group
       Madalyn Grinies, Port Norfolk Civic League                         Public Schools.                              John Carlock, Hain ton Roads Planning District
       Nancy Hilson, DCR                                        Dr. Robert Ake, Cape Henry Audubon Society                                I P
                                                                                                                       Susan Cofer, Educator
       'R. Harold Jones, US Army Corps of Engineers             Guy Aydlett, Hampton Ro" Sanitation Disrict            Linda Cole I, Norfolk Naval Shipyard
       Mike Kensler, Chesapeake Bay Foundation                  Mike Barbachem, URS Consultants                        Cheryl Copper, City of Hampton
       Harold Marshaik Old Dominion University                  June Bafreft-McDaniels, Aquarius Engineering           James Daman, City of Norfolk
       Debora Mosher, Cox High School                           Tom Beachinn, NORSHIPCO
       Michael Nickelsburg, Tidewater Comm. 'College,           Dr. George Brown, Norfolk State Univers .ity'.         Chris Fischer, Tarmac
       Mark Perreault, Norfolk Southern                         Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation                   John Hanscont, Hatcher-Sayre
                                                                                                                       William Hunley, Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist
       Walter Priest, VA Institute of Marine Science            Frank Daniel, VA Dept.-,of Environmental Quality       Dr. Albert Y. Kuo, VA Institute Marine Science
       Josh Priest, US Navy                                     Paul Dickson,'Norfolk Southern                         Michelle Long, Texaco Lubricants
       Gray Puryear, C ape Henry Audubon Society                Thomas Friberg, US Army Corps of Engineers
                                                                                                                       Jack Mies, 1. H. Miles & Co.
       Lee Rosenberg, City of Norfolk                           Rick Goldbach, Metro-Maclime
       Carlene Smith, Park View Civic League                    Dr. Robed Hale, VA Institute of Marine Science         Leta Mitchel], Environmental Health Specialist
                                                                                                                       Derek Speetles, Texaco Lubricants "
       Fred Stemple, Tidewater Cominunity College               Mike Host; Norfolk Naval Shipyard                      C.D. Thomas, VA Dept of Environmental Quality
       James Wilson, Norfolk Clean Community                    Will Jones, City of Portsmouth                         Van  White, Huntsman Chemical
       Mollie Wolcott, VA Port Authority                        John Keifer, City of Norfolk


                                                           Alizabeth River Project
                                                            109 E. Main-St., Suite 305
                                                          -Norfolk, Virginia 23510
                                                            804-625-:3648 fax 804 625-4435                                                      Printed on recyled paper