Portsmouth, Virginia coastal zone land use plan

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

Final Report

COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PLAN

CITY OF PORTSMOUTH,
VIRGINIA

April 29, 1988

'101r; LEM

HT
393
.V8
P67 WWMPERT
1988

COASTAL ZONE

!N`L@G-'@IIWATATON CE'--"@JTER

PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA

COASTAL ZONE LANO USE PLAN

April 28, 1988

U . 'S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASIAL SERVICES, CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTONI@ SC 29405-2413

r of CSC Library

PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables, Figures and Appendices .................... ii
Acknowledgments ........................................... iii
Executive Summary ......................................... iv

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...... I

I. Plan Rationale ....................................... 1
II. Pertinent Regulations ................................ 3
III. Coastal Zone Land Use Purpose ........................ 18
IV. Synthesis of Existing Plans and Studies .............. 20
V. Goals for this Plan .................................. 35

CHAPTER 2 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................... 37

I. Environmental and Ecological Analysis ................. 37
II. Analysis of the Built Environment ..................... 59
III. Coastal Zone Impact Dynamics .......................... 72
IV. Summary of Problems and Opportunities ................. 78

CHAPTER 3 COASTAL ZONE LAND USE PLAN ......................... 86

I. Significant Coastal Land Use Areas .................... 86
II. Coastal Land Use Plan .................................. 92
III. Infrastructure and Circulation Requirements ............ 100
IV. Coastal Access Strategy ................................ 102
V. Environmental Management Strategies .................... 106

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES Page

2-1 Soils Series Prominent Along Portsmouth Coastal
Areas and Properties Pertinent to Construction ..... 39

2-2 Selected Water Column Metal Concentrations from
Studies of the Elizabeth River ..................... 43

2-3 Major Aerial Extent of the Coastal Wetlands of
Portsmouth, Virginia ............................... 50

2-4 Sensitive Species within the Portsmouth Area ....... 56

FIGURES Following Page

1-1 Hampton Roads Vicinity iv

2-1 Flooding Potential 85
2-2 Natural Resources
2-3 Cultural Resources
2-4 Existing Land Use
2-5 Existing Zoning
2-6 Built Environment
2-7 Planned and Proposed Development Actions

3-1 Significant Coastal Land Use Areas 116
3-2 Future Land Use
3-3 Public Access Strategy
3-4 Infiltration Trenches
3-5 Wet Retention Ponds

APPENDICES Page

A. Abbreviation and Acronym Definitions A-1
B. Technical Glossary A-3
C. Coastal Zone Management Funding Sources A-7
D. Industrial Performance Standards A-16
E. -Sources A-18

-ii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Woolpert Consultants acknowledges, with great appreciation, the assistance
of several agencies and organizations who provided much of our secondary
data. These cooperating agencies and organizations include:

City of Portsmouth Planning Department, Engineering Department
and City Manager's Office

The Norfolk District of U.S. Corps of Engineers

The Council on the Environment

The Virginia Marine Resources Commission

The State Water Control Board

The Library and Wetlands Ecology Department
Virginia Institute of Marine Science

The State and Regional Offices
The Commission of Game and Inland Fish

The Virginia Natural Heritage Program
Division of Historic Landmarks and Virginia Outdoors Foundation
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources

The Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning Commission

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Portsmouth is part of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News Metropolitan
Area located in the southeastern Virginia area known as Hampton Roads
(shown in Figure 1-1). As the area's population increases and stimulates
commercial and physical growth, planning for future development becomes
necessary in order to manage better the area's resources. As a result, the
City of Portsmouth is updating its Comprehensive Plan. The City
particularly wishes to manage more effectively its coastal lands and has
selected Woolpert Consultants to prepare a Coastal Zone Land Use Plan
(CZLU) for the 83.1-mile Portsmouth coastline. The Plan Report comprises
three chapters.

Chapter I provides an overview of the Coastal Zone Management Program. It
summarizes relevant federal, state, regional and local regulations. It
explains the purpose of the Coastal Zone Land Use (CZLU) Plan. Existing
baseline information was synthesized from plans and studies relevant to the
CZLU Plan. The chapter concludes with a list of goals for Portsmouth's
CZLU.

Chapter II comprises a summary of existing conditions, including an
environmental and ecological analysis, an analysis of the built environment
and an assessment of coastal zone impact dynamics.

Chapter III synthesizes the information from the previous chapters into a
recommended plan. After noting significant coastal land use areas, the
chapter enumerates recommended land uses along Portsmouth's shoreline,
paying particular attention to undeveloped areas and agricultural uses that
will probably undergo land use changes in the next few years. The chapter
explains infrastructure and circulation requirements and recommends
strategies to make Portsmouth's shoreline more accessible to the public.
Finally, the chapter discusses environmental management strategies,
focusing on construction and engineering considerations that can be
implemented to optimize the use and conservation of coastal resources.

-iv-

HAMPT

A
,lt7

., . . . . . . ..

. ....... . . .-1
NORFOLK

77:@
ORTS 13
OUTH
c7F:
VIRGINIA
SUFFOLK ...........
BEACH
17
58

eL;@@ e,

sit.

DR.

4
17
CHESAPEAKE

Figure 1 - 1
VADOU@ PORTSMOUTH AND VICINITY

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

This Chapter reviews the pertinent coastal zone regulations,
describes the purpose of a Coastal Zone Land Use Plan (CZLU),
synthesizes previous plans and studies and describes the goals and
objectives of this plan.

PLAN RATIONALE

Very little attention has been paid to the Portsmouth shoreline even
though, historically, the City has been significantly tied to the
shoreline and maritime commerce. Today, the Portsmouth shoreline
represents approximately 83 miles of mixed-use development with
little remaining vacant land. Recently there has been a resurgence
of interest in revitalizing the coast by various Portsmouth citizen
groups. Also, the City of Portsmouth has become involved with the
Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program, and the coastal
area/shoreline component is critical to the City's effort to consider
coastal land use and development issues in its update of the 1980
Comprehensive Plan.

The City has several concerns regarding development along the
shoreline. Previous development has already destroyed many
significant wetland areas along the City's shoreline, and the City
is concerned with related issues such as erosion and water quality,
the mix of land uses along the shoreline, the presence of only one
public boat-launching facility and restricted public access to the
shoreline.

Several significant studies of the shoreline are in progress.
0 The Scotts Creek Study, in its final review by the City, is
investigating market factors relative to the Scotts Creek area
in consideration of a land use plan for this portion of
Portsmouth's shoreline.

0 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Norfolk District) Study is
investigating the feasibility of dredging through Scotts Creek
to the Sugarhill area.

A Land Use Study of the 91-acre West Norfolk Section is being
performed for the Portsmouth Port and Industrial Commission.

-1-

0 The City is in the process of updating its zoning and
subdivision regulations and is looking forward to incorporating
environmental and land use findings from the CZLU Plan into the
City's development regulations.

A Coastal Land Use Plan for Portsmouth will provide goals, policies
and recommendations to guide the physical growth and development of
Portsmouth's shoreline. The plan described in this report does not
identify the amount of land each use will require to accommodate
future development. Neither does it allocate these land uses based
on existing land use patterns, current market trends and land
suitability. Rather, the plan described here is an
environmentally-oriented land use plan that identifies and seeks to
preserve environmentally sensitive areas that might be affected by
development of areas adjacent them. Such a CZLU Plan is needed in a
unique area such as the Portsmouth shoreline in order to ensure
consistency, objectivity and efficiency in meeting Portsmouth's
growth and development needs while protecting the vital natural
resources located along the shoreline.

-2-

PERTINENT REGULATIONS

This section is not a comprehensive catalog of all legislation
related to coastal zones; it is a brief outline of pertinent
legislation, programs and coordinating agencies that could become
involved in implementing this Plan's land use recommendations along
Portsmouth's coastal zone.

FEOERAL LAW

National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
(42 USC 4371 et seg.)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is the nation's basic
charter to help public officials make wise land use decisions that
protect our environment. The Act requires an environmental
assessment or environmental impact assessment of any federally funded
project that may significantly affect the social, economic or
ecological components of the environment.

Federal agencies that comment on documents produced under NEPA
include, but are not limited to:

0 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta Office

0 U.S. Department of the Interior; Washington Office; Atlanta
Regional Office

0 U.S. Department of the Interior; Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
0 U.S. Coast Guard, 5th District (Portsmouth)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, District IV, Atlanta

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Virginia Office

0 U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond
0 Federal Insurance Administration, Atlanta Regional Office

-3-

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-583, as amended 16 USC 14511

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and its amendments (PL
94-370; PL 95-372; PL 96-464) authorize a federal grant-in-aid
program that allows for development of State Coastal Resource
Management Programs. It is administered by the Secretary of Commerce
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM).

The CZMA and implementing regulations (44 FR 18595), as codified
(Title 15 CFR Part 923), outline national objectives, provide the
requirements for federal approval of state program grants and
describe how grant monies are to be used to achieve agreed upon
objectives. The CZMA contains federal consistency-review provisions
to ensure that federal actions are consistent with the state's
federally-approved management program. The CZMA also contains
response provisions for onshore impacts of coastal energy activities.

The River and Harbor Act of 1899
(33 U.S.C. 401-413)

This Act is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE)
to protect navigation and navigable capacity of the nation's waters.
The Act requires USCOE approval for the construction of any
structure, dredging and rechannelization in or over any "navigable
water" of the United States.

The Clean Water Act of 1977 et seg.
(P.L. 92-500)

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (formally known as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act), requires USCOE authorization for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into all "waters of the United
States." This includes wetlands (both tidal and nontidal) and
territorial seas.

The Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(P.L. 92-532 et seg.)

Section 103 of this Act requires USCOE authorization to transport
dredged material to be dumped in marine waters.

-4-

Presidential Executive Order No. 11990
"Protection of Wetlands" (FR Doc. 77-15123)

This Act requires all federal agencies to minimize the destruction,
loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out federal
actions affecting land use. This Act includes, but is not limited
to, water (and related land resources) planning, regulating and
licensing activities. The Act is concerned with public welfare,
sediment and erosion control and maintenance of natural systems.

Presidential Executive Order No. 11988 and 12148
"Floodplain Management" (44FR 43239)

This Act requires federal agencies to reduce the risk of flood loss;
to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare;
and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served
by floodplains. The Act reviews projects in 100-year floodplains for
alternative upland sites. Water-dependent projects such as marinas
and boat ramps are only required to consider design modifications to
minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain and to circulate
a notice explaining why the project is proposed within the
floodplain.

Note: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) complies with
Executive Orders 11990 and 11988 through the Agency NEPA procedures
(Title 40 CFR, Part 6). Before undertaking an USEPA action, each
program office must determine whether the action will be in or will
affect a floodplain or wetlands. USEPA uses Flood Insurance Rate
Maps and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps prepared by the Federal Insurance
Administration (FIA) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). USEPA also consults National Wetlands Inventory Maps
prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service and consults with other
appropriate agencies to determine whether a proposed action is
located in or will likely affect a floodplain or wetlands.

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983

Recognizing the importance of reversing the long-term decline of the
Chesapeake Bay, the Commonwealth of Virginia joined the USEPA, the
States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and
other federal agencies in a joint effort. In December 1983, this
effort was formalized as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement
called for preparation and implementation of Bay-wide plans to
improve and protect the integrity of the Bay.

The USEPA serves as central liaison for all federal participants in
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, including: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

-5-

Service, NOAA, USCOE, U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Each agency provides funds, research
support and manpower for the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

The Chesapeake Say Agreement of 1987

This new agreement, drafted by the Chesapeake Executive Council and
signed in December, 1987, contains technically up-to-date and
specific restoration recommendations. The new agreement outlines the
following goals and specific commitments for action in six sections:

1. Living Resources

Goal: To provide for the restoration and protection of
living resources, their habitats, and ecological
relationships.

Commitments: Adopt criteria for protection of water quality
and habitat conditions and use these criteria to
implement protection plans;

Adopt a baywide plan for assessment of species
with commercial, recreational and ecological
value by July 1988;

Adopt a schedule for development of fishery
management plans by January 1989;

Protect and restore tidal and nontidal wetlands.

2. Water Quality

Goal: To reduce or control point and non-point sources
of pollution to attain a water quality necessary
to support the living resources of the Bay.

Commitments: Adopt and begin implementing a plan by July 1988
to achieve 40-percent reduction of nutrients
entering the Bay by the year 2000.

Adopt an implementation plan by July 1988 for
management and control of conventional
pollutants.

The USEPA will develop and adopt a plan by July
1988 for control and reduction of point and
non-point sources of nutrient, toxic, and
conventional pollution from all federal agencies
and installations.

-6-

Adopt an implementation plan by December 1988
for reduction and control of toxic materials
from point and non-point sources and from bottom
sediments.

Reevaluate the 40-percent nutrient reduction
target by December 1991 based on results of
modeling, research monitoring, and progress to
date.

3. Population Growth and Development

Goal: To plan for and manage the adverse environmental
effects of human population growth and
development in the Chesapeake Bay system.

Commitments: Adopt development guidelines by July 1988 to
reduce adverse impacts on water quality and
living resources, and assist local governments
in evaluating land use and development
decisions.

Evaluate state and,federal development projects
in light of potential impacts on water quality
and living resources.

Provide incentives, technical assistance and
guidance to encourage local governments to
incorporate protection of tidal and nontidal
wetlands in their land use and water supply
planning.

Report by July 1988 on anticipated population
growth and land development patterns through
2020, infrastructure requirements for growth and
development, environmental programs to improve
Bay resources while accomodating growth,
alternative means of managing and directing
growth, and alternative mechanisms for financing
governmental services and environmental
controls.

-7-

4. Public Information, Education and Participation

Goals: To promote greater understanding among citizens
about the Chesapeake Bay system, the problems
facing it and policies and programs designed to
help it.

Commitments: Conduct education programs to inform the public,
local governments, industry and others of their
roles, responsibilities and opportunities in the
restoration and protection effort.

Provide for public review and comment on all
implementation plans.

5. Public Access

Goal: To promote increased opportunities for public
access to the Bay and its tributaries.

Commitments: Intensify efforts to improve and expand public
access opportunities made available by the
6. Governance federal, state, and local governments.

Goal: To support and enhance a comprehensive,
cooperative and coordinated approach toward
management of the Chesapeake Bay system. To
provide for continuity of management efforts and
perpetuation of commitments necessary to ensure
long-term results.

Commitments: Continue to support environmental monitoring and
research to provide technical and scientific
information necessary for management decisions.

Continue to support the Chesapeake Executive
Council and associated advisory and support
bodies.

The specific commitments of the 1987 Bay Agreement are backed by
current research and are designed to create significant, efficient
improvements in the Bay. For example, mathematical models of the Bay
indicate that a 40-percent reduction in nutrient levels will lead to
significant improvements in water quality so that oysters, striped
bass larvae and other organisms will have a better chance to survive.

Meeting the commitments of the 1987 Bay Agreement will require major
investments in pollution control programs such as sewage treatment
plants, stormwater control structures and expanded control of toxics
and agricultural pollution. Unfortunately, funding commitments are
not specified.

The Agreement includes a provision for public review and comment on
all implementation plans. During October, 1988, the Citizens
Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Program will conduct
roundtable public meetings to discuss the Agreement.

STATE LAW, PROGRAMS AND COORDINATING AGENCIES

Vegetated Wetlands Act of 1972
(Code of Virginia Title 62.1, Chapter 2.1)

This Act sets standards for the use of wetlands and adoption of
ordinances; describes jurisdiction of wetland boards and makes the
Marine Resources Commssion (VMRC) responsible for reviewing board
decisions, issuing permits, and developing guidelines. Available
guidelines evaluate wetland values based on vegetative community
structure.

The policy of the Act is as follows:

"Therefore, in order to protect the public interest, promote the
public health, safety and the economic and general welfare of
the Commonwealth, and to protect public and private property,
wildlife, marine fisheries and the natural environment, it is
declared to be the public policy of this Commonwealth to
preserve the wetlands, and to prevent their despoliation and
destruction and to accommodate necessary economic development in
a manner consistent with wetlands preservation."

With the enactment of Chapter 300, Acts of Assembly, 1982, the
General Assembly added nonvegetated intertidal areas (tidal mud or
sand flats, beaches and oyster reefs) to the above wetlands
protection law.

The Virginia Environmental Quality Act of 1972
(Code of Virginia, Section 10-178 et seg.)

This Act established the Virginia Council on the Environment (COE) as
a state agency. The COE coordinates environmental policy by
promoting the wise use of air, water, land and other natural

-9-

resources, and by protecting these resources from pollution,
impairment or destruction. The Virginia Environmental Quality Act
directs the COE

11 ... to initiate, implement, improve and coordinate the
environmental plans, programs and functions of the State in
order to promote the general welfare of the people of the
Commonwealth and fulfill the state's responsibility as trustee
of the environment for the present and future generations."

The COE has no regulatory authority but is responsible for assuring
coordination among state environmental regulatory programs and
helping disseminate grant monies. Agencies represented on the
council operate under the auspices of the Secretaries of Natural
Resources, Human Resources and Economic Development within the
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources (DCHR). These
agencies are the:

0 State Air Pollution Control Board
0 Commission of Game and Inland Fishes
0 Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
a Department of Conservation and Historic Resources
0 Department of Health
0 Marine Resources Commission
0 State Water Control Board

In relation to Portsmouth's Coastal Zone Land Use Plan one of the
COE's responsibilities under the CZMA is to administer Virginia's
efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives Program (CBIP). The CBIP
includes cooperative monitoring of water quality; setting standards
for urban runoff treatment plants, chlorine reduction and toxics;
financing sewage treatment plants; managing fisheries and commercial
and recreational boating; and providing research and education.

The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program

In response to the federal CZMA, the Commonwealth of Virginia
developed the Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program (VCRMP).
The Program received final approval from the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management of NOAA in September 1986. The VCRMP
proposes no new legislation or agencies; under COE coordination, it
provides a framework for networking existing coastal resource
management agencies.

The VCRMP makes the Commonwealth eligible for federal CZMA funds.
The Program received one $1,000,000 in 1987 and will probably receive
a like sum each year for the next five years. The 1987 funds were
allocated to regional planning districts, local governments and state
agencies to assist in studying and managing coastal resources.

-10-

The central feature of the VCRMP is a core of eight regulatory
programs that subject critical land and water uses to regulation by
the Commonwealth. The core programs include:

1. Fisheries Management

Regulatory Authority Over Commercial and Recreational Fishing
MRC and Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries (CGIF).

2. Subaqueous Lands Management

Regulatory Authority Over All Encroachments In, On, or Over
State-Owned Subaqueous Lands -- MRC.

3. Wetlands Management

Regulatory Authority Over All Encroachments Into Vegetated and
Nonvegetated Wetlands -- MRC.

4. Dunes Management

Regulatory Authority Over All Encroachments Into Coastal Primary
Sand Dunes -- MRC. -

5. Non-point Source Pollution Control

Regulatory Authority Over Erosion and Sedimentation From
Nonagricultural Upland Land Disturbing Activities -- Department
of Conservation and Historic Resources (DCHR).

6. Point Source Water Pollution Control

Regulatory Authority Over Existing, Planned or Potential
Discharges to State Waters -- State Water Control Board (SWCB).

7. Shoreline Sanitation

Regulatory Authority Over Shoreline Use of Septic or Other
On-Site Domestic Waste Systems -- State Department of Health
(DOH).

8. Air Pollution Control

Regulatory Authority Over Emissions Affecting Air Quality --
State Air Pollution Control Board (SAPCB).

The VCRMP gives special attention to the management of Geographic
Areas of Particular Concern (GAPCs) -- areas that contain
particularly important resources or where natural conditions pose
particular threats to man and his investments. Virginia's program
identifies 11 categories of GAPC and describes the special management
provided by the Program. The VCRMP also recommends priority land use
options for each category.

Coastal Natural Resource Areas of Particular Concern

1. Wetlands

These are protected under the Virginia Wetlands Act by
state or local regulation with MRC oversight. (See Core
Regulatory Program)

2. Spawning, Nursery and Feeding Grounds

This category includes four areas:

0 James River oyster seed beds
0 Public oyster grounds
0 Blue crab sanctuary
0 Striped bass spawning sanctuaries

These are protected under special regulations of the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission and state statutes.

3. Coastal Primary Sand Dunes

These are protected under Coastal Primary Sand Dune
Protection Act (See Core Regulatory Program)

4. Barrier Islands

These are protected under a variety of state, federal and
private conservation organizations.

5. Significant Wildlife Habitat Areas

These 10 areas are protected and managed as Wildlife
Management Areas by CGIF.

6. Significant Public Recreation Areas

These 14 areas are owned and managed by Division of Parks
and Recreation (OPR). Planning is carried out through the
Virginia Outdoors Plan (VOP). Acquisition for new areas
may be by condemnation.

-12-

7. Significant Mineral Resource Deposits

Extraction activities are regulated under Minerals Other
Than Coal Surface Mining Law administered by Department of
Conservation and Economic Development.

8. Underwater Historic Sites

Underwater historic property is under the specific
statutory authority of the MRC. This category includes
submerged shipwrecks and cargo and refuse sites or
submerged sites of former habitation that are on
state-owned subaqueous bottom and are determined valuable
by the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission.

Coastal Natural Hazard Areas of Particular Concern

9. Highly Erodible Areas

Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS) gives technical
assistance to private owners. The Shoreline Erosion
Control Act gives financial assistance to local governments
under Public Beach Conservation and Development Act.

10. Coastal High Hazard Areas

The Virginia Flood Damage Reduction Act encourages uniform
statewide building codes and local zoning that restricts
development areas.

Waterfront Development Areas

11. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Funds

CZM funds are available to localities that ask for GAPC
designation of waterfront areas if the localities develop
special management programs for those areas.

Coordination and oversight of the VCRMP is handled at three separate
levels of responsibility. Individual management activities,
primarily the operation of Virginia's core regulatory programs, are
independently managed by individual agencies. Management by these
agencies is coordinated by the overview and direction of the
Secretary of Natural Resources. The COE assists the Secretary by
administering the details of the VCRMP and acting as "lead agency"
for program and grant management, monitoring and reporting.

-13-

Governor's Executive Order No. 13
(June 23, 1986)

Through this Executive Order, Governor Gerald Baliles established the
VCRMP and directed all state agencies to carry out their duties
consistent with the VCRMP and in a manner that promotes overall
agency coordination in achieving VCRMP goals and objectives. The
Executive Order set out the 25 policy goals under the following
headings:

0 Prevention of Environmental Pollution and Protection of Public
Health
Prevention of Damage to Natural Resource Base
0 Protection of Public and Private Investment
0 Promotion of Resources Development
0 Promotion of Public Recreation Opportunities
0 Promotion of Efficient Government Operation
0 Provision of Technical Assistance and Information

The order also outlined procedures to resolve conflicts at the state
level.

Waters of State, Ports and Harbors
(Code of Virginia, Title 62.11

The following chapters of Title 62.1 are pertinent (in addition to
the Vegetated Wetlands Act of 1972 described previously):

Chapter 1. -- Watercourses Generally

This chapter gives all ungranted beds of bays, rivers, creeks
and shores to the Commonwealth. The MRC has the authority to
approve permits to encroach on subaqueous beds (below mean
low-water mark). The CGIF controls certain lands in order to
protect them for fish and wildlife.

Chapter 3.1 -- State Water Control Law

This chapter establishes the SWCB as the administering and
rulemaking agency. The SWCB sets discharge enforcement
regulations (as described in Articles 3-8 of the State Water
Control Act) for industrial establishments, sewage treatment
plants, pollution from boats, and discharge of oil into state
waters. As part of its pollution control effort, the SWCB
implements the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPOES) permit program and controls the issuance of No-Discharge
Certificates.

-14-

0 Chapter 16 -- Wharves, Docks, Piers and Bulkheads

.This chapter controls the erection and abatement of private
piers, wharves, docks and landings. It does not control public
works.

0 Chapter 20 -- Miscellaneous Offenses

This chapter contains miscellaneous laws relating to water
pollution. Laws included cover disposal of solid waste into,
and obstruction of, rivers, creeks, streams or wetlands.
Section 62.1-195 controls discharge of oil into navigable tidal
waters of the state.

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law of 1973
(Code of Virginia, Title 21, Chapter 1, Article 6.1)

This law was enacted to control the soil erosion to prevent
sedimentation, turbidity and pollutant problems in state waters. The
statewide erosion and sediment control program is administered by the
Soil and Water Conservation Commission (SWCC) within DCHR. The SWCB
participates as an advisor. This law provides that no one may engage
in any land-disturbing activity (other than agriculture) without an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approved by the local authority.
The Plan must meet local conservation standards. The Law also
requires periodic inspections of land-disturbing activities to ensure
compliance.

Virginia Outdoors Plan of 1984

The DPR, within the OCHR, primarily manages this plan. Coastal
recreational access could be funded through the Virginia Outdoor Fund
or the Open Space Land Act (Code of Virginia, Title 10, Chapters
151-158). The governor endorses the VOP as the State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The Plan meets National Park
Service, Department of the Interior approval, as the plan qualifying
Virginia for receipt of matching grants for acquisition and
development. These grants are available under the Land and Water
Conservation Act, which provides the funds for implementing the VOP.

REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

The Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission

The Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission (SVPOC) is a
regional planning agency authorized by the Virginia Area Development
Act of 1968 (VADA) and created by Charter Agreement in 1969 as one of
22 State Planning District Commissions. It represents the cities of

_15-

Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Franklin, Norfolk, Suffolk and Virginia
Beach, and the Counties of Isle of Wright and Southampton. The
primary function of the SVPDC is to promote the orderly and efficient
physical, social and economic development of the district. SVPDC's
involvement in physical planning most directly affects the
implementation of the recommendations of this plan. The SVPDC
studies, develops plans for and advises local governments in land use
development, water quality, water resources, coastal zone management
and open space/recreation development.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency

The Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency (HRWQA) is a consortium of the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Peninsula Planning District
Commission and SVPDC. The Agency was formed in 1974 to develop an
areawide waste treatment management plan in accordance with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500, Section 208). The Governor designated the HRWQA as a Section
208 planning agency on April 30, 1974. The HRWQA has responsibility
for water quality management planning for the entire area of the
SVPDC and the Peninsula Planning District Commission. The major aims
of the HRWQA are:

0 Consistency with the requirements of Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act;
Satisfaction of federal water quality planning guidance and
regulations; and
Meeting the water quality needs of the Hampton Roads area.

The Lower James-Hampton Roads River Basin Committee

This is one of eight citizen-advisory committees created in 1985 to
provide public participation in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program,
this committee lets Portsmouth citizens review Virginia's Cheasapeake
Bay initiatives and other state programs related to the southern
Chesapeake Bay. The committee is expected to recommend changes to
state plans and programs designed to benefit the Bay for the 1988-90
biennium. LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

Wetlands Board

A local wetlands board was established by ordinance on April 26,
1988. The VMRC previously administered all permit review.

-16-

Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program

VCRMP has a local coordinator who manages monies and grant-related
activities in Portsmouth.

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

The Director of Parks and Recreation is Portsmouth's local
coordinator for SCORP.

Erosion and Sediment Erosion Control Program

The City Engineer is Portsmouth's program coordinator for the OCHR
program.

Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission

The City Manager is the executive commission member representing
Portsmouth.

Lower James-Hampton Roads River Basin Committee

The City has one seat on this citizen's advisory committee.

other Groups

A number of local interest groups and private individuals have become
involved in public participation related to shoreline use. These
groups vary, depending on the proposed project. Examples are: The
Scotts Creek Committee and the Craney Island Commission.

-17-

COASTAL ZONE LAND USE PURPOSE

The purpose of a local CZLU Plan is to provide policy for five basic
areas: Natural Resource Protection, Land Use Management, Pollution
Control and Protection of Public Health, Recreation and Open Space
Conservation, and Economic Development.

1. Natural Resource Protection

A natural resource protection policy will recognize the
increasing demand for shore-related development in the context
of the increasing need to conserve dwindling coastal resources
for the valuable services they perform. A primary goal of
Portsmouth's CZLU Plan is to preserve remaining marshes and
marine habitats in the estuaries.

A workable CZLU Plan will permit continued water-dependent
development along the shoreline, leave wetlands and associated
buffer areas undisturbed and minimize damage to the diversity
and productivity of marine resources (subaqueous lands,
submerged aquatic vegetation, finfish and shellfish).

2. Land Use Management

A land use management policy will provide for the safe and
efficient use of land while protecting the quality of the
surrounding environment. The CZLU Plan will ensure that future
growth and development will protect Portsmouth's coastal
resources in an environmentally sound manner.

The CZLU Plan will provide the City with a framework for
coordinating, controlling and promoting a variety of land uses
along the coastline. The CZLU Plan will also give the City the
ability to address the land use impacts of development on the
surrounding coastal area and a basis for future land use
decisions.

3. Pollution Control and Protection of Public Health

A pollution control policy will establish development, zoning
and land management practices that will allow greater access to
and use of coastal resources without significantly detracting
from usefulness, enjoyment and safety of those same resources.

The CZLU Plan will provide strategies to protect water quality,
control erosion and sedimentation and generally reduce point and
non-point source pollution. Effective site selection criteria
will divert future point or non-point source pollution to
locations that will minimize negative impacts to coastal
resources and human health.

4. Recreation and Open Space Conservation

The recreation and open space conservation policy will give the
city an evaluation of locations in the city for shoreline access
for water-related activities. The CZLU Plan will evaluate the
potential for creating access to the coastline through boat
ramps or parkland.

The CZLU Plan will ensure adequate conservation of existing open
space, including environmentally sensitive areas.

5. Economic Development

An economic development policy will give the City a guidebook to
promote future industrial and commercial development along the
coastline in an environmentally compatible matter. The CZLU
Plan will identify appropriate waterfront and key sites for
development that will not adversely affect water quality,
natural habitat coastline stability or commercial aquatic
resources. The CZLU Plan will also identify sites that take
into account the carrying capacity for general land use.

_19-

IYNTHIIII 01 IXIITINI PLANS AND ITUIIII

Much planning has already been undertaken and many reports and
studies are already prepared containing baseline information relevant
to the CZLU Plan. This section summarizes many of these reports and
studies and examines their implications for the CZLU Plan.

Portsmouth Comprehensive Plan Part 3
Plans for Action (1980)

This plan was written by the City of Portsmouth Planning Department.
This plan, which is being updated, makes recommendations for the
coastal areas of Portsmouth.

The plan divides the City into 21 neighborhoods, of which nine
(Downtown, Northside, Westhaven, Park Manor, Sterling Point, Hatton
Point, Merrifields, Port Norfolk and Waterview) have coastlines.

Downtown

The plan recommends the careful completion of downtown waterfront
development, in the spirit of the waterfront development plans, to
ensure that the full potential of the waterfront is realized and that
public and private amenities are enhanced.

Northside

The plan recommends fuller use of the Scott's Creek Waterfront
through the development of a public boat ramp, rezoning of the
Flagship Restaurant property and the resolution of severe drainage
problems in the creek.

Westhaven

The plan does not make any recommendations for the waterfront.

Park Manor

The plan does not make any recommendations for the waterfront.

Sterling Point

The plan does not make any recommendations for the waterfront.

Hatton Point

The plan considers the future uses of the Wise Beach property and the
waterfront property near Peace Way/Midfield Parkway most important.

-20-

Merrifields

The plan considers the future use of the Southampton/Ballard and Long
Point PUD sites most important. Both sites have creek frontage, but
wetlands at both sites cannot be developed.

In addition to land use recommendations, the plan also makes
recommendations regarding economic development and recreational
opportunities.

Economic Development

The plan states that marketable industrial sites could be developed
in three areaa: at West Norfolk, Newtown and Craney Island with
deepwater access. In West Norfolk, the Beasley Farm and other areas
offer sites with both rail access and water frontage that would be
attractive to satellite firms of petro-chemical companies. In
Newtown, the old Coast Guard base provides the best opportunity for
attracting a capital-intensive industry. The base has deepwater
access and 40 acres of back-up land. Craney Island offers the
prospect of developing major port-industrial operations. This
potential development, however, is years away. A fourth area,
Pinners Point, provides the best opportunity to attract port-related
light industry and distribution facilities.

Recreational Development

The plan specifically recommends improving the waterfront access by
constructing new boat-launching ramps at Scott's Creek and at the
Western Freeway Bridge in West Norfolk, developing a major waterfront
park with boating facilities an the east side of Craney Island and by
ensuring that future downtown waterfront developments preserve public
access to the seawall and visual continuity between High Street and
the river.

Comprehensive Elizabeth River
Water Quality Management Plan (1986)

This plan, written by the HRWQA and the SVPDC, examined water quality
goals in relation to waterfront development goals and discovered that
a number of the waterfront development goals potentially conflict
with the achievement of water quality goals. Specifically, goals
that promote industrial and port-related development and higher
density residential and commercial development may increase economic
development. However, the associated increases in urban runoff and
non-point source pollution loads to adjacent waters conflict with
water quality goals.

-21-

The plan identified seven "transitional parcels of concern" in
Portsmouth. These areas are projected to undergo a change in land
use that could affect water quality in the Elizabeth River Basin.
These parcels are:

Craney Island Disposal Area

This is currently a disposal area for dredged material. The future
use is projected to combine the current use with industrial use.

Cox Site

This land is currently vacant. The projected use is industrial
development.

Beasley Property

This land is currently vacant. The projected use is mixed-use
development.

Pinners Point

This is currently a sewage treatment plan. The future use is
unknown.

Scotts Creek

This is partly vacant and partly used for mixed-use development. The
projected future use is industrial development, specifically harbor
service. A recent proposal to dredge the creek to accommodate
larger-draft boats has caused substantial discussion within the
surrounding neighborhood. A separate study (described below) has
been commissioned by the City to examine development potentials in
the area relative to dredging impacts.

Allied

The current and future use is industrial development.

Port Centre

The land is vacant. The projected use is commercial development.

-22-

Scott's Creek Project Technical Memorandum (1987)

This report, prepared by Hunter Interests, Inc., analyzes market
potential for future uses and prepares a conceptual development plan
for the Scott's Creek area. The report focuses on 37 acres of vacant
land on the north shore of Scott's Creek. The report not only
analyzes the existing market, but also makes recommendations
regarding the future use of the north shore area.

Industrial Markets

The report indicated that waterfront industrial demand an the
Elizabeth River and in Portsmouth specifically is characterized by
certain changes and shifts, but little overall growth. Existing
industrial waterfront areas were not experiencing any dislocation
pressure to change waterfront land uses to commercial or residential
development. Rather, industrial service and support establishments
requiring waterfront locations showed growth desires and the need for
new locations. Good industrial growth was forecast for maritime
service establishments over the short-term. Over the long-term,
however, the future of these industries was uncertain.

Commercial Markets

The report stated that commercial development potentials at Scott's
Creek were severely limited by location, access and market
conditions. The location of the port industrial environment on the
north coast cancels out many otherwise attractive aspects of the
waterfront. Lack of access is a serious limitation to site
development. Any mixed use development potential depends on the
resolution of the access problem. A highway interchange planned for
the area is still in the design phase. The market conditions rule
out any office development in an already over-built environment and,
while a long-term commercial use of the north shore land is clearly
the highest and best use, such a development will not be feasible for
at least 10 years. Small amounts of commercial, recrea 'tion,
retailing, wholesaling and boat-related office and services uses,
however, could be realized on the north shore in the short-term.

Residential Markets

The report stated that there appears to be a strong market for
waterfront residential development, and the authors were optimistic
about potentials for luxury waterfront residential developments in
Portsmouth. They felt, however, that sites other than Scott's Creek
were more desirable for future waterfront development projects for
the short and medium-term future. A small residential development
linked with a boat service center, a large marina and retail and

-23-

commercial support could, however, be successful on the North Shore.
There were no development potentials for a hotel/motel at Scott's
Creek over the short-term and only marginal prospects for such a
development over the medium-term.

Other Markets

The report found that the Hampton Roads area has no single pleasure
boating center or focus of activity in the local pleasure craft
industry. However, the area has several marinas. Still, the authors
felt that a true opportunity exists for providing a diversified
marina service center to service the existing market. The authors
also pointed out that Scott's Creek has several locational
disadvantages. One disadvantage is its time-distance relationship to
the Chesapeake Bay. That is, most boat owners would rather drive
their automobile one or two hours to a boat anchor in the Chesapeake
Bay rather than cruise several hours in their boat to reach the same
location. Other disadvantages included high levels of commercial
traffic, the overall industrial environment and the somewhat
unhospitable shorelines of the Elizabeth River.

Recommendations

The report recommended that the north share be developed as a "marine
industrial park" that would include maritime uses such as
establishments supporting deep craft vessels and commercial barges;
marine industrial establishments such as boat service and repair
establishments; engine maintenance and repair establishments; hull
repair establishments; sail lofts; electronic sales and service
establishments; and boat yards and related establishments. The
authors also recommended dredging a deep water commercial channel
from the Elizabeth River with a narrower and shallower channel to the
new establishments along the north shore. Additional dredging could
be done at the individual property owners' discretion.

Shoreline Situation Report
Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk and Portsmouth (1976)

This report was prepared by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(VIMS). Its objective was to assess important shoreline parameters
to help planners and shoreline managers make the best decisions for
ytilization of limited and valuable coastal resources. VIMS
inventoried and mapped coastal land ownership, shoreland types,
nearshore width (from shore to 12-foot depth based on mean low-water
elevation datum), floodplains, waste dischargers and federal lands.

-24-

General

Much of Portsmouth's southeastern shore is federally owned. The
highest probable flood (standard project tidal flood) extends more
than a mile inland along Portsmouth's eastern coasts. Sixty-six
percent of Portsmouth's shoreline is natural or semi-natural
(marshland); 30 percent is bulkheaded; and two percent is beach.

Shore Use Limitation

Many areas are already completely used. Conflicting land use
patterns could easily arise. Industry and commercial uses requiring
deep-water docking are limited to land areas abutting the Main Stem,
Southern Branch and Western Branch of the Elizabeth River.
Recreational potential is currently limited because of poor water
quality and the demand for residential development. Construction on
shore lands is subject to flood damage since the 100-year storm would
rise up to nine feet and more frequent floods would still be
significant.

Alternate Shore Uses

A major use of unused shorelands should be a comprehensive effort to
save-areas with marshes or other peculiar natural resources. This
could be accomplished by creating a series of open-space parks along
the shoreline. In a metropolitan area such as the tri-cities, a
major effort should be given to the creation and maintenance of open
space. These areas would not only conserve the quality of the
shorelands but also improve the quality of life for the residents.

The Elizabeth River
An Environmental Perspective (1983)

This report was funded by the Chesapeake Bay Program and prepared by
the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Bureau of Surveillance
and Field Studies. The report examined water quality and water
resources data and summarized the present environmental conditions in
the Elizabeth River system. In addition, the report assessed trends
in some of the measured parameters over the span of available
information.

Available Information

The most significant problems in the Elizabeth River system are
elevated levels of organics (primarily polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PNA's]) and metals in the bed sediments and the
associated toxicity or potential for toxicity in these areas of the
river. The history of extensive dredging in the Elizabeth River and
the continuing removal of large volumes of sediment further
complicate the situation.

_25-

Particular Problem Areas

Sediments in the portion of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth
River between St. Julian's Creek and the Downtown Portsmouth Tunnel
exhibit some toxicity, according to bioassays conducted by Old
Dominion University (ODU) and the EPA. The Virginia Institute of
Marine Science (VIMS) found extremely high levels of PNAs in sediment
from the area just north of St. Julian's Creek in the vicinity of two
creosoting plants (one of which is no longer operating). Preliminary
biological studies by VIMS have confirmed toxic responses by species
in the Elizabeth River, particularly in the area contaminated most
heavily by PNA's. Toxicity appears to be directly related to contact
with the contaminated sediments.

Historical Trend

Historical trends indicate that water quality may have improved
somewhat since the 19601s. Populations of indigenous estuarine fish
species continue to inhabit and survive in this area.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan
1983 Implementation Status and Plan Update

The Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan (HRWQMP) was prepared
by the SVPDC for the HRWQA with funds from the EPA. The HRWQMP for
1983 reports the status of HRWQMP implementation activities since
1981. The HRWQMP also reports on plans made since the initial HRWQMP
was issued in 1978. The report focuses on the planning process
toward non-point source evaluation and control strategies and
reiterates the need for cooperative and comprehensive water quality
planning for the Hampton Roads area.

General Water Quality Recommendations

The HRWQA developed General Water Quality Management Recommendations,
which focus an changes in resource management policies and regulatory
procedures. Many of the recommendations have state and national
significance. The report indicates that the General Water Quality
Management Recommendations were generally sound and well-conceived.
Considerable implementation has occurred. Most of the
Recommendations remain valid today and, with only few modifications,
all are reiterated in the Hampton Roads Water Quality Improvement
Program.

Basin Plan Recommendations

The HRWQMP listed the area's principle water bodies in two
categories, according to the severity of their water quality
problems.

-26-

The HRWQMP limited its parameter-specific control recommendations to
the parameters addressed in the HRWQA water quality sampling and
modeling programs. The report documents individual Basin Plan
recommendations and the actions taken over the last five years to
implement them. Finally, the report states that the most pressing
need for Basin Plan development involves the Elizabeth River Basin.
The report indicates which recommendations need to be modified to
meet the particular problems of the Elizabeth River.

Management Agency Designations

The HRWQMP assigned implementation responsibilities to several
agencies and recommended a specific institutional structure for
ongoing water quality management in the Hampton Roads area.

Five years' experience with the HRWQMP Management Agency designations
confirmed their validity. The management agencies directly and
indirectly accomplished many of the HRWQMP recommendations.

Plan Update

Since the HRWQMP was completed, certified and approved, water quality
management has made significant progress in the Hampton Roads area.
Several HRWQMP recommendations have been, or are being, achieved.
.However, some recommendations have not been achieved, and several new
issues have arisen.

The Plan Update is presented in a series of Tables as the Hampton
Roads Water Quality Improvement Program. It describes the Areawide
Activities that will guide water quality management efforts between
1984 and 2000. It details the Basin-specific Point Source Control
Strategy and summarizes the Non-point Source Control Strategy. The
Improvement Program also includes specific assignments of
implementation responsibility. The Basin-specific aspects of the
Non-point Source Control Strategy are described in detail in the
companion report, Non-point Source Control Program for the Hampton
Roads Area.

Non-point Source Control Program
for the Hampton Roads Area (1983)

Prepared by the SVPDC, this report describes and refines the
non-point source control recommendations contained in the HRWQMP and
the subsequent Preliminary Recommended Implementation Program for
Non-point Source Control. This Program also offers basin-specific
recommendations.

-27-

Non-point Source Control Program

The program initially defined problems, based on an extensive
sampling and modeling program. The population and employment
forecasts were considered to identify probable future pollution
contribution sources.

Urban control recommendations center on:

0 Implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance
requirements
Implementation of local government urban housekeeping-type
activities
Ongoing public education and information programs

Agricultural recommendations include:

0 Implementation Agreements with the area's four Soil and
Water Conservation Districts
0 Cooperation with and participation in other agency's
agricultural non-point control programs
0 Participation in and sponsorship of public education and
information programs

Other miscellaneous recommendations relate to:

0 Animal Wastes -- No Discharge Certificate Program
0 Agricultural Recycling of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Residual Solids -- No Discharge Certificate Program
0 Landfills -- State Health Department Solid Waste Disposal
Regulations
Construction Activities -- Erosion and Sediment Control
Program
0 Septic Tanks -- State Health Department Sewage Handling and
Disposal Regulations
0 Outside Materials Storage -- Best Management Practice
Handbooks
0 Drydocks Studies underway
0 Marinas State and federal regulations studies

Monitoring Program

The report suggests that an effective planning and implementation
effort requires an ongoing monitoring program. It recommends that
the HRWQA should continue its leadership role in monitoring non-point
source pollution and Best Management Practice effectiveness. It also
recommends several water quality studies as well as routine water
quality, controls implementation and socio-economic trend monitoring
efforts. The report envisions comprehensive water quality management
plans.

-28-

Basin-Specific Non-point Source Control Program

The Basin-Specific Non-point Source Control Program describes
recommended non-point source control activities that are generally
applicable throughout all the basin(s). It also includes assignments
of implementation responsibility for each program activity. The
HRWQA has concluded that individual control measures are best
determined an a site-specific basis. Thus, the Basin-Specific
Program does not include site-specific recommendations for controls
such as Best Management Practices implementation or housekeeping
activities. It should serve as a guide to site-specific controls
implementation. The Simplified Technique for Developing Site
Specific Non-point Source Control Plans, described in a companion
report, will assist in making that transition from basin-level
guidance to site-specific implementation.

Background and Problem Assessment Report
for the Elizabeth River (1984)

This basin-specific assessment was prepared by the Virginia State
Water Control Board in cooperation with the HRWQA and SVPDC.

Problem Areas

Some of the key water quality issues related to the Elizabeth River
were highlighted. These were:

0 Dissolved oxygen violations during summer months
0 Toxic organics in sediments
Heavy metals accumulations in sediments
Stressed fisheries and biological organisms
0 Prohibition on shellfishing
0 Poor flushing characteristics
0 Sediment build-up resulting in increased dredging frequency

The report suggests that the reasons for the above problems are
varied and complex. A major issue is how to maintain a good level of
aesthetics for a river that serves as a major marine transportation
corridor and receives millions of gallons of wastewater each day.

Review of Issues

0 The report assesses the applicability of existing water quality
standards to the Elizabeth River and concludes that dissolved
oxygen standards may not reflect the river's natural condition.
Conversely, heavy metal standards may need to be tighter for the
Elizabeth River.

-29-

0 The "fishable/swimmable" goal is deemed reachable in time on the
Elizabeth River. However, the costs may be high and might
include not only direct users but also all citizens of
municipalities involved.

0 The "Urban Use Segment" may be a tool to reduce total costs of
improved water quality. Dollar for dollar, results could be
least in the southern branch. However, only EPA can grant
waivers to the City of Portsmouth. Additional studies of the
Elizabeth River may indicate a need for upgrading of nutrient
removal and other parameters.

Since the Chesapeake Bay Study targeted the Elizabeth River as
one of the major toxic sources of the lower bay, the toxic
problem deserves more focused study. The location of sources is
key because most can be well controlled, once identified. After
sources are under control, efforts can focus on existing toxic
sediments and whether to dredge them or let them remain in the
river to degrade naturally.

Best Management Practices may not work unless they become
mandatory, regulated and administered by state and federal
agencies. This would be expensive so equitable funding
alternatives and cost-benefit for improving water quality would
have to be identified.

The issue of dredge spoil removal as an impact on water quality
is closely tied to toxics. If toxics are controlled, necessary
dredging drops out as a major water quality issue.

Compatible uses of the river relies on coexistence of existing
uses that are traditionally non-compatible (recreation and
industry). Minimization of aesthetic pollution would encourage
greater use and enjoyment of the river.

Conclusion

The report recommended and outlined a study very similar to the
Comprehensive Elizabeth River Water Quality Management Plan that has
been previously described and was produced two years subsequent to
this report.

Open Space -- 2000 (1985)

This plan was written by City of Portsmouth staff. It examined the
existing open space and recreational facilities within the City and
made recommendations to improve these facilities. Of importance to
the Coastal Land Use Plan any recommendations involving improving
public boat access and development of waterfront re creational areas.

_30-

Currently, the only public boat ramp within the City is in City Park.
At the time of the study, this ramp was being expanded to increase
the ramp size to four lanes. If one boat ramp lane serves 12,500
people, then Portsmouth needs approximately eight boat ramp lanes to
serve its populace. Therefore, the plan recommended four additional
boat ramp lanes in the short-term and an additional boat ramp in the
long-term future.

The plan suggested that boat ramps be constructed on Scott's Creek
and near the West Norfolk Bridge in the short-term and on Paradise
Creek in the long-term. The plan also recommended development of a
water-oriented park along with the boat ramp at Scott's Creek and a
water access park at Bayview Boulevard.

Southeastern Virginia
Recreation Facilities Inventory (1987)

This report, written by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission, was a physical inventory of all recreational facilities
in the southeastern Virginia region. Of importance to this Study
were the number of boat ramps, number of marina slips, linear feet of
public beach and linear feet of public fishing piers.

The Inventory listed five public boat ramp lanes at two sites. (One
site is at the City Park; the other is unknown.) The Portsmouth
Yacht Club has a sixth, private boat ramp. These six boat ramp lanes
rank Portsmouth at the bottom of the list of municipalities providing
boat access.

Boat Ramp Lanes in Portsmouth and Nearby Municipalities

Municipality Public Private Total Lanes

Virginia Beach 28 23 51
Norfolk 13 10 23
Suffolk 21 0 21
Chesapeake 4 5 9
Portsmouth 5 1 6

TOTAL 110

The Inventory estimated that 15,000 trailored boats (not including
boats registered outside the area) in southeast Virginia must compete
for the region's 110 boat access lanes. This problem is expected to
worsen, given the scarcity of suitable publicly-owned land and the
estimated three percent annual increase in boat registrations.

The Inventory reported 537 boat slips in Portsmouth, distributed
among the six private marinas.

-31-

Portsmouth Boat Slips

Marina Name Number of Slips

Tidewater Yacht Agency 340
Lee's Yacht Center 95
VA Boat & Yacht Services 56
Pritchard RR Marina 24'
Portsmouth Yacht Club 19
Harbor Tours 3

TOTAL 537

The Inventory also reported that the 86 miles of coastline in
Portsmouth has only 200 feet of public beach and 40 linear feet of
public fishing piers.

Downtown Portsmouth Parking Study (1985)

This Study, prepared by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission, examined parking in downtown Portsmouth, including areas
along the waterfront.

The Study reported 2,265 parking spaces along the waterfront. This
represents 44 percent of the total downtown spaces. Of these 2,265
parking spaces, only 1,045, or 46.1 percent, are needed at peak hour
demand creating a surplus of 1,220 parking spaces.

1987 SVPOC Economic Outlook

This Outlook written by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission in July, 1987, provides a variety of social and economic
characteristics for the southeast Virginia area, including
Portsmouth.

The Outlook reported that the entire Hampton Roads economy has grown
between 1980 and 1985. Sales have increased, and unemployment has
decreased. However, a slowdown is expected. The reason: The
federal government is gradually ending the large peacetime, military
build-up; and the Hampton Roads area includes over 200,000 military
and civilian employees of the federal government. The Outlook
estimates that the Gross Regional Product of the region increased by
2.75 percent annually between 1965 and 1984. During those same
years, the United States' gross national product increased by only
2.51 percent annually.

-32-

The Outlook indicated that general cargo tonnage at the Portsmouth
Marine Terminal increased steadily between 1984 and 1986. In 1984,
the Portsmouth Marine Terminal processed 0.95 million tons of cargo;
in 1985, 1.09 million tons; and in 1986, 1.32 million tons. This
represents a 38.9 percent increase over the two-year period.

The Outlook also reported increased tourism and conventions in the
area. In Portsmouth, the number of conventions increased from 42 in
1985 to 78 in 1986. The number of convention attendees also
increased during this time from 6,300 to 28,527.

Hampton Roads Office Study (1987)

This Study, written by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission, examined trends in office building construction including
vacancy rates, office demand and new office construction projects.

The Study predicted that Portsmouth will receive another 203,000
square feet of office space in 1987 and 1988.

New Office Space Predicted for 1987 and 1988

Project Name Square Footage

Bristol Square 15,000
Crawford Executive Center 14,000
Kings Crossing 20,000
Port Centre Commercial Park 119,000
Portsmouth Parkside Development
Association 35,500

Total 203,000

However, the study estimated a demand for only 20,000 additional
square feet in 1987 and 1988. The vacancy rate of the existing
1,400,000 square feet of office space in Portsmouth was 17.8 percent
in January, 1987. Thus 249,200 square feet of office space was
vacant. The vacancy rate is likely to rise with the addition of
183,000 square feet of new, surplus office space.

-33-

Hampton Roads Income Trends and Analysis (1987)

This Analysis, written by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District
Commission, examined various income trends in the Hampton Roads area.
The Analysis indicated that all the income indicators had risen For
Portsmouth. Total personal income, per capita personal income,
median family income and median household income all showed steady
growth throughout the 1980's. The Analysis also indicated a
three-percent increase in the growth of military earnings as a
percent of total earnings in Portsmouth. In 1984, military income
represented 10.4 percent of total earnings.

-34-

V. GOALS FOR THIS PLAN

The goals of this Land Use Plan are consistent with the goals the
Commonwealth of Virginia used as a basis for its coastal resources
policy. These goals are inter-related with the policies listed
previously in the CZLU Basis section and with the goals of the
Virginia Coastal Zone Management Plan.

The pertinent goals of the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Plan are:
0 To maintain, protect and improve the quality of coastal waters
suitable for the propagation of aquatic life and recreation such
as swimming.

To reduce nonpoint pollution caused by inappropriate land uses
and inadequate land management practices in tidal streams,
estuaries, embayments and coastal waters.

To reduce the potential for damage to coastal resources from
toxic and other hazardous materials through effective site
selection and planning as well as improved containment and
clean-up programs.

To protect the public health from contaminated seafood.

To protect ecologically significant tidal marshes from
despoliation and destruction.

To minimize damage to the productivity and diversity of the
marine environment from alteration of subaqueous lands and
aquatic vegetation, and from the disruption of population
balances of finfish and shellfish.

To reduce the adverse effects of sedimentation on productive
marine systems.
0 To maintain areas of wildlife habitat and to preserve endangered
species of fish and wildlife.

0 To reduce or prevent losses of property, tax base and public
facilities caused by shoreline erosion.

0 To minimize dangers to life and property from coastal flooding
and storms.

0 To promote the wise use of coastal resources for the economic
benefit and employment of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

-35-

To protect and maintain existing uses of estuarine waters for
shellfish propagation and marketing.

To encourage provision of commercial and industrial access to
coastal waters where essential to economic vitality.

To maintain or improve productive fisheries.
0 To provide for mineral-resource extraction in a manner
consistent with proper environmental practices.

0 To provide and increase public access to coastal waters and
shorefront lands for recreation.

0 To coordinate the Commonwealth's planning processes to
facilitate consideration of alternative locations for major
projects within the context of long-term development patterns
and implications.
0 To provide Portsmouth governing officials and private citizens
with the technical advice they need to make wise decisions
regarding uses of and impacts on coastal resources.

The particular goals of the Portsmouth Coastal Zone Land Use Plan,
drawn from the goals listed above, are proposed as follows:

0 To promote environmentally sound growth that allows both an
increase in the quality of natural coastal resources and greater
human use of those same resources.

To identify the potential for increased shoreline access along
Portsmouth's coastline.

0 To protect coastal wetlands and evaluate the potential for
wetland restoration.

0 To formulate strategies that will most efficiently improve the
Elizabeth River water quality.

0 To provide general land use carrying-capacity recommendations to
help accommodate all types of shoreline development along
Portsmouth's shores.

-36-

CHAPTER 2
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter builds on the information presented in Chapter 1,
reviews the results of the existing conditions analysis and
summarizes the problems and opportunities in the study area. The
information for this phase was compiled from published sources of
past or present conditions, information supplied by the City of
Portsmouth and State agencies, existing base maps and aerial
photography and from a parcel-by-parcel land use inventory and field
observation of environmental/ecological conditions conducted between
January 11 and 15, 1988.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

GENERAL LAND FORM

The study area lies completely within the geological Coastal Plain
Province, the low-lying area between the fall line of direct coastal
drainage and the Atlantic Ocean. The topography is nearly level.
Upland areas generally exhibit less than two-percent slopes with a
few low ridges exhibiting two- to eight-percent slopes. Elevations
range from 10 to 15 feet above mean sea level (MSL) on upland
portions of Portsmouth. Filled land occasionally reaches 20 to 25
feet above MSL. The banks of watercourses are gradual and exhibit
slopes of five- to 10-percent, but many areas of sharper fall have
been created by past fill. Submerged lands (below mean low water
elevations) drop off gradually except where dredged.

The predominant natural landscape feature is the Elizabeth River and
its tributaries. These watercourses define much of Portsmouth's
boundaries. The main channel and the Southern Branch form
Portsmouth's eastern boundary; the Western Branch separates old
Portsmouth from the northern neighborhoods; and the James River forms
the boundary of Craney Island/Rivershore. The low-lying topography
accounts for the slow flow and the strong tidal influence
characteristic of the Elizabeth River. This topography also accounts
for the many meandering tidal creeks that extend inland.

SOILS

Much of the land adjacent Portsmouth's coastline is urban-made land
(fill). Areas of original soil mostly contain soils in the Tidal
Marsh and Mixed Alluvial Land soil association. These soils occupy

-37-

narrow strips along creek headwaters and consist of mixed materials
deposited by runoff and tidal action. These soils become more
expansive further downstream and may extend nearly a quarter of a
mile inland along the Elizabeth River. Tidal flats and some beaches
are primarily located along the Main Stem of the Elizabeth River and
the south side of the Western Branch.

Soils of the Woodstown-Sassafras-Dragston soil association dominate
the shorelandT -along the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River from
Elizabeth Manor Country Club to Tareyton Lane (West of City Park) and
occur in other areas directly upland of the Tidal Marsh and Mixed
Alluvial Land soil association. Narrow strips of Tidal Marsh and
Mixed All 1 Land soils extend from the Western Branch and its
estuaries for short distances into Woodstown-Sassafras-Dragston
soils.

Table 2-1 describes the soil series most prevalent along Portsmouth's
shoreline in the associations described above. Properties of these
soils produce construction constraints in the coastal zone ranging
from moderate to severe. Whenever these soils are sloped, erosion
control is necessary when carrying out land-disturbing and
revegetation activities. Tidal Marsh and Mixed Alluvial Land soils
carry high risks for roadb subsidence, have high water tables, are
prone to flooding and are best suited for water-dependent
recreational or wildlife habitat uses. Woodstown-Sassafras-Oragston
soils are loamy, fine, course-textured, porous and highly permeable
(requiring impounded retention basins). These soils are poor to fair
as unimproved road bases.

The specific soil series within associations are not mapped because
so many areas are filled. When considering construction on
undisturbed sites, individual soils can be located on the Norfolk
County Soil Survey.

HYDROLOGY

Annual rainfall in Portsmouth ranges between 45 and 50 inches per
year. Surface drainage before Portsmouth was developed was not
well-defined. Water pooled in several inland swamps, and surface
water slowly moved cross-country to the Elizabeth River drainage.
Today, urbanized land coverage in Portsmouth confines surface water
to a network of stormwater drains, ditches and drainage tiles
directed toward the Elizabeth River or its tidal creek tributaries.
Only a few areas retain water or have completely unimpeded flow
within stream banks.

The Elizabeth River system, an estuary in the James River Basin, gets
its major freshwater flow from Deep Creek in the headwaters of the
Southern Branch. The river eventually drains approximately 300

-38-

TABLE 2-1
Portsmouth Coastal Zone Land Use Plan
Soils Series Prominent Along Portsmouth Coastal
Areas and Properties Pertinent to Construction

Optimum Fill
Depth to above Water Suitability Erosion-
Water Table Table Shrink-Swell Workability for Foundation Subsidence
(Feet) (Feet) Potential When Wet or Road Base Hazard

Tidal Marsh Mixed Alluvial Land

Tidal Marsh 0.0 >5.0 Low to Not Not Moderate to
a Moderate Suitable Suitable Severe

Coastal Beach 0.0 1.0 None Good Not Slight to
Suitable Severe

Mixed Alluvial Land (Floodplains) 0.0 2.0-3.0 Low to Not Not Moderate to
Moderate Adopted Suitable Severe
Woodstown-Dragston-Sassafras

Sassafras Loamy Fine Sand 2.0-3.0 <1.0b None to Fair to Poor to Moderate to
Moderate Good Fair Severe

Woodstown Fine Sandy Loam 1.0-2.0 4.0 None to Fair Poor to Moderate to
Moderate Fair Severe

Galeston Fine Sandy Loam 3.5-4.0 <1.0b None to Low Fair to Poor Slight to
Good Moderate

a - Filling should be avoided
b - No fill required if adequate surface drainage provided

Source: (Norfolk County Soil Survey and Field Observations)

square miles of land populated by over 500,000 people and empties
into the James River at Hampton Road. Its components include the
Main Stem, Southern, Western and Eastern Branches and the Lafayette
River.

The soft, erodible sediments typical of the Coastal Plain Province
allowed for the development of the branching pattern of the river.
Tidal creeks adjoining the river branches add a second order of
dendritic channels to the system. Eighteen of these smaller
drainages lie within the corporate boundaries. Those that are named
include Hoffler, Craney, Lily, Carney, Sterns, Baines, Hulls, Scotts
and Paradise Creeks. Lake Kingman is actually a broad tidal creek as
well.

All of these drainages, large and small, are low-gradient,
slow-moving watercourses. As a result, the Elizabeth River has very
poor flushing characteristics, and the entire river system, relative
to other estuaries, is characterized by strong tidal influence and
high saline content. The location of the Craney Island dredge
disposal area effectively lengthens the Elizabeth River and further
detains flushing. In addition, freshwater flow from the James River
occasionally intrudes into the mouth of the Elizabeth River and
creates a wedge of denser saltwater in deeper portions of the
Elizabeth River. This also restricts flushing.

Flood hazard levels are not fully assessed for the tidewater area,
but hazards can be estimated, based on the two tidal flood levels
used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: the Intermediate Regional
Flood and the Standard Project Regional Flood (see Figure 2-1).

0 The Intermediate Regional Flood is equivalent to a 100-year
flood, approximately eight feet above mean water level. Such a
flood would not reach travel far along the Western Branch but
would inundate portions of Pinners Point, the Naval Hospital,
the downtown area and Newtown.

The Standard Project Regional Flood is the highest probably
flood level (500-year flood). The effects of this flood would
cover Craney Island, the Cox Property and the eastern half of
Portsmouth south of the Western Branch.

WATER QUALITY

The water quality of the Elizabeth River has been more thoroughly
studied than any other environmental element described in this
report. This is because the Elizabeth River is one of the most
heavily used waterways in Virginia. Because of its poor flushing

-40-

characteristics, the Elizabeth River retains pollutants that
accompany heavy use for long periods, and the dominance of tidal
influence also disperses pollutants upstream and downstream of
pollutant entrance points. Even tributary creeks are subject to
contamination from sources in the Main Stem and the major
tributaries.

As would be expected, three centuries of heavy human use have
radically changed both the physical and chemical nature of the
Elizabeth River and its water quality. Except for low levels of
Coliforms (primarily from waterfowl) and PAHs (from forest fires),
most of the sediment and pollutants present in the river today were
absent (or nearly so) from the original system. Fortunately,
Portsmouth does not need to use the Elizabeth River for municipal
water supply: The safe yield capacity of Portsmouth's reservoir/well
system in Suffolk far exceeds projected water demands into the year
2030. Other metropolitan areas, such as Virginia Beach, may
experience deficiencies, however.

The physical and chemical changes in the river do present a problem
for other uses of the river and the coastal resources it provides.
The effects of major uses such as large-scale ship-building, shipping
traffic, wastewater treatment facilities, chemical industries, power
plants and stormwater runoff are often detrimental to other uses,
such as commercial and sport fishing and shellfishing, recreational
boating, tourist facilities, riverside park space and residential
use. Several studies have revealed that Elizabeth River sediments
and water can produce toxic and lethal effects an amphipods, grass
shrimp and fish. These effects are most pronounced in the Southern
Branch and are apparently most closely related to PAHs and other
organic toxins. Other tests have shown heavy metal accumulation in
grass shrimp. Another result is that shellfish, other than crabs,
may not be harvested from the Elizabeth River due to Coliform levels.
They may not even be removed to cleaner waters to purge pollutants
from them before consumption.

In the final analysis, an improvement in the six water quality
conditions described below would promote diversified, pleasurable and
profitable use of the coastal areas of the river.

1. Conventional Pollutants

The five conventional pollutants discussed here relate directly
to the biological productivity and viability of the river.

Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Elizabeth River range from
good, near the river's mouth, to poor, in the Eastern and
Southern Branches. DO levels are generally lowest in the
Southern Branch and the deeper portions of the river. Daily
violations of DO standards average five milligrams per liter.
However, continuous oxygen depletion has not been observed, and
conditions appear to be improving.

-41-

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOO) levels are an index of the
amount of oxygen consumed during biological processes that break
down organic matter in water. Greater concentrations of organic
wastes (primarily from wastewater treatment outfalls) produce
higher BOO values. BOO levels in the Elizabeth River are higher
than average estuary values for the region. Available oxygen
concentrations are lower in deeper portions of the river, so BOO
values are lowest there.

The pH levels in the river system are in the standard range (pH
6 to 9) most of the time. The lowest levels and occasional
violations are most frequent in the Southern Branch.

Fecal Coliform bacteria (Coliforms) levels are relatively high
throughout the main channels of the river system and are highest
near the mouth of the Western Branch. Coliforms present one of
the more serious water quality problems in the river. The State
standard for shellfish waters is a median density of total
Coliforms below 14 per 100 milliliters of water. No areas of
the river even approach levels that would allow commericial
shellfish harvest. The potential health hazards of this
condition preclude swimming and shellfish collection throughout
the river.

Nutrient levels of total phosphorus are highest in the Southern
Branch, and nitrogen levels are high in all the branches. Algal
blooms occur in the Southern Branch, and chlorophyll "All levels
(indicating algal density) range from 10 to 20 milligrams per
liter throughout the system. These levels, coupled with the
low-light conditions produced by elevated sediment levels in the
water column, are probably not high enough to initiate algal
blooms in other portions of the Elizabeth River. Phosphate
concentrations seem to be decreasing in all branches, but
nitrogen does not show significant change.

2. Inorganic Toxics

This category includes heavy metals and other inorganic
compounds. These compounds and organic toxic compounds present
the greatest problem to Elizabeth River water quality and the
greatest stress to river biology. The inorganic compounds
listed below were found in the Elizabeth River in concentrations
that exceeded United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) toxicity criteria for saltwater aquatic life. (These
standards are based an total metal concentrations rather than
acid-soluble fractions that would affect living organisms, so
the present limits may overestimate the actual impact.)

-42-

MM Imm man M OMM M

TABLE 2-2
Portsmouth Coastal Zone Land Use Plan
Selected Water Column Metal Concentrations from
Studies of the Elizabeth River

Test EPA EPA Degree of
Metal Concentrations Chronic Toxicity Acute Toxicity Concern for
(Average Values) Criteria Criteria Control

(All values in milligrams per liter mg/1)

Mercury 0.4 - 9.7 means 0.025 2.1 High in main stem

Copper 17 - 21 Not set 2.9 High

Nickel 105 - 117 7.1 140 Moderately High

Zinc 35 - 69 58 170 Moderate in Western and
Eastern Branches

Lead 12 - 20 5.6 140 Moderate

Cadmium 8 - 14 9.3 43 Moderate

Chromium 11 - 15 18 54 Slight

a - Long-term exposure to concentrations above these levels creates significant lethality in aquatic organisms
b - Short-term exposure to concentrations above these levels creates significant lethality in aquatic organisms
Source (Comprehensive Elizabeth River Water Quality Management Plan, 1986)

Table 2-2 summarizes the results of many tests for metal
concentrations in the water column. Although metal
concentrations in the water column have not shown clear annual
trends, nickel and lead in the Southern Branch and mercury in
the Western Branch have decreased over time. The highest
concentrations of chromium and zinc occurred in the Eastern
Branch. The highest mercury levels were in the Main Branch, and
the highest zinc levels were in the Western Branch. Chromium
was lowest in the Southern Branch.

Metal concentrations in the sediment of the Elizabeth River
showed the highest levels of mercury, arsenic, lead and nickel
in the Eastern Branch and the highest levels of zinc and cadmium
in the Southern Branch. The lowest levels of arsenic, lead and
nickel were in the Main Branch and the lowest levels of zinc and
cadmium were in the Southern Branch. Compared to other
estuaries, the Elizabeth River has sediment metal concentrations
two to ten times higher than the middle of the Chesapeake Bay or
the Potomac River. Lead and zinc concentrations are three times
higher than in Lower James River sediments. Compared to the
Baltimore Harbor (the Patapsco River), however, Eliabeth River
sediment metal concentrations are lower: zinc and cadmium
concentrations are only half as high as those in the Patapsco
River; lead and copper concentrations are one fourth has high as
in the Patapsco; and chromium concentrations are less than one
tenth of those in the Patapsco.

3. Organic Toxics

Little information is available on specific concentrations of
individual organic toxins or on chronological or geographic
trends in concentrations. One study, comparing overall organic
concentrations in the Chesapeake Bay region, showed the
following organic toxin concentrations by geographic area:

Organic Toxins in the Cheasapeake Bay Region

Location Concentration

Lower Bay 10 parts per billion (ppb)
Mid-Bay 100 ppb
Upper Say 1000 ppb
Baltimore Harbor/ 6,100 to 2.7 million ppb
Patapsco River
Baltimore Harbor 20,000 to 200,000 ppb
Dredged Channel
Elizabeth River 3,100 to 440,000 ppb

-44-

According to these figures, Elizabeth River sediments contain 10
to 10,000 times greater organic concentrations than Chesapeake
Bay sediments, but one-half to one-tenth the organic
concentrations found in Baltimore Harbor sediments. However,
the concentration of sediments in the most heavily
industrialized areas of the Southern Branch were twice as high
as the highest concentrations in the Baltimore Harbor Dredged
Channel.

Two specific organic compounds have been detected in the
Elizabeth River system. Polynucleated aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) compounds have been detected in the Main Stem and the
Southern Branch of the river. Forest fires are an historic
source of baseline levels of PAHs in sediments. Increased
levels are attributable to the combustion of carbonaceous fuels,
direct contamination by carbonaceous fuels such as coal dust
from the Norfolk and Western Coal Terminal, contamination by
oils, fuels, paints and solvents used by the ship building
industry, and by creosote contamination. PAHs of compounds
related to shipbuilding begin to appear in toxic levels just
south of the Downtown Portsmouth Tunnel. The highest levels of
PAHs, similar to compounds reported for creosote-contaminated
waters, were collected near an operating creosote plant just
north of St. Julian Creek. Further upstream, higher molecular
weight PAHs were collected, probably attributable to power
plants and major highway crossings.

Tributylin (TBT) is an organotin pesticide. TST is used in
antifouling coatings on boat and ship hulls, and TBT compounds
are used as bactericides and biocides in various industrial
processes. Very little is known concerning TBTs in the
Elizabeth River, but limited sampling has shown potentially
toxic TBT levels near marinas and shipyards (up to 200 parts per
trillion). There is increasing concern that TBT and related
compounds may be present in high enough concentrations to create
a biological hazard. TBT concentrations would be expected in a
microlayer at the water surface, in the water column and in
bottom sediment.

4. Industrial Pollutant Dischage

Industrial releases are the primary sources of the inorganic and
organic toxic compounds in the Elizabeth River and a secondary
source of nutrients. Industrial and municipal dischargers must
receive permits from the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and be classified as major
industrial, minor industrial, major municipal or minor municipal
NPOES permit holders. Figure 2-5 shows the permitted
dischargers inside Portsmouth's corporate boundaries:

-45-

Four Major Industrial NPOES-Permitted Dischargers along the
Elizabeth River and inside Portsmouth's corporate
boundaries are: The Craney Island Naval Fuel Depot,
Virginia Chemical, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, and Alantic Wood
Industries.

Most Minor Industrial NPDES-Permitted Dischargers are on
the Norfolk side of the Main Stem and Western Branch of the
river, but the following three are in Portsmouth: Cogentrix
(near Lake Kingman), B.P. Oil Company (at the mouth of
Paradise Creek), and Tarmac-Lonestar (in Port Norfolk). A
fourth company, Marine Leasing Service (near the
intersection of Interstate 264 and State Route 17), has a
permit pending. The midtown and downtown Portsmouth
tunnels are also NPOES-permitted minor dischargers.

Municipal wastewater dischargers are the primary sources of
nutrients. The predominance of wastewater treatment facilities,
food processors and fertilizer plants in the Southern Branch
comprises a significant cumulative nutrient discharge.
Municipal dischargers also cause elevated Coliforms and
depressed 00 and BOO, and municipal dischargers are a secondary
source of organic toxics.

The Major Municipal NPDES-Permitted Discharger in
Portsmouth is the Pinner's Point Sewage Treatment Plant
(STP). Two other major STP dischargers in Norfolk are
Lamberts Point STP and the Army Base STP further north.

0 Four Minor Municipal NPDES-Permitted Dischargers are in the
Eastern Branch and Southern Branch, well away from
Portsmouth.

Non-point Source Pollution

Non-point source pollution refers to pollutants that are
transferred from general land surfaces to the Elizabeth River by
natural processes. This transfer occurs after a rain by street
runoff and stormwater runoff through drainage networks and
occasionally through groundwater seepage. (Point source
pollution involves controlled discharge from process-connected
pipes.)

Sources of non-point pollution in the tidewater area include
materials washed from waterfront industrial docks and pavements,
drydocks, marinas, material and waste storage areas. Sources in
urban areas include stormwater drainage outflows from streets
and parking lots and land-disturbing construction. Sources in
residential areas include septic fields in some locations during
wet periods. Sources in agricultural areas include fertilizers
(including recycled sewage sludge), pesticides, animal waste and
sediment.

-46-

The major sources of non-point pollution in Portsmouth include
waterfront industries and marinas, stormwater drainage outflows
(predominant in southern Portsmouth: See Figure 2-5),
agricultural runoff (in northern Portsmouth), ongoing
construction and perhaps septic tank systems. The pollution
includes virtually every pollutant type, but often in lesser
amounts and concentrations than from point sources. Non-point
pollution is controllable by Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that involve careful land use planning, design and maintenance.
Few of the non-point pollution sources have permit or
operational controls in the tidewater area.

6. Dredging Operations

Except for the shoreline development that has already occurred
along the Elizabeth River, the greatest human-induced physical
impact to the Elizabeth River is the continuing development and
maintenance of shipping channels. Continued dredging operations
to maintain channel depth are essential to provide safe shipping
lanes. Currently, a series of channel reaches connect the James
River to the intracoastal waterway at Deep Creek and the
Southern Branch. The Craney Island, Port Norfolk, Town Point
and Lower/Middle reaches of the Southern Branch pass by
Portsmouth. Smaller reaches, which extend to the Western Branch
and Scotts Creek, may be expanded in the near future.

These activities also have a direct impact on water quality.
Bucket or pump siphon-dredging produces equal amounts of
suspended sediments. Higher turbidity (water cloudiness from
suspended sediment) tends to increase water temperature and
decrease dissolved oxygen. Maintenance dredging creates only
temporary effects of this nature. Of more concern, resuspension
of contaminated sediments reintroduces heavy metals and PAHs
into the river system. Studies have shown that such increased
exposure increases intake of metals (and presumably PAHs) by
aquatic organisms, particularly oysters and clams. The State
Water Control Board requires core samples and analyses for PAH
and particle size before dredging operations are permitted.

Another study investigated the "trapping efficiency" or sediment
retention ability of the Craney Island rehandling basin, a
35-acre dredged holding facility that temporarily stores dredge
material awaiting disposal within the Craney Island dredge
disposal area. The study indicated that the basin was an
effective trap for sediments discharged into it. Sediment could
escape during ebb tides through the northern barge access
channels. Some uncertainty remains concerning the ability to
retain PAH-laden sediments from the Southern Branch, but
discharge in the western portion of the basin during favorable
tidal phases would maximize retention.

-47-

VEGETATION

In predevelopment times, the natural vegetation-of the
Portsmouth area consisted of expansive underwater and
above-water growth. Eelgrass and widgeongrass beds flourished
in submerged shallows of the Elizabeth River. Broad tidal flats
and expansive salt marshes formed the margin between land and
water in most places. Beyond tidal influences, forests of red
maples, gums, water-loving oaks, tulip trees and green ash trees
predominated. This forest type graded into drier forests of
loblolly pine stands with pockets of gums, oaks, beeches and
hickories.

The original forest cover of Portsmouth is entirely gone. Only
young forest and scrub serve as natural groundcovers today. A
few older trees, natural or planted, are in or near residential
areas today. In many locations, wetlands have been drained or
filled. In other coastal areas, wide marshes have been reduced
to fringe marsh. The original beds of submerged aquatic
vegetation have succumbed to high sedimentation and pollution in
the Elizabeth River. Embayment marshes have been reduced
greatly by filling and channeling. Although most wetland
community types of vegetation still exist, they exist in
narrower bands due to filling and reduction of gently sloping
lands subject to periodic inundation within the tidal range.
Emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands have experienced significant
declines throughout Virginia.

As part of this study, existing tidal wetlands along
Portsmouth's coast were investigated. Sources included U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps,
unpublished survey information from the Virginia Institute of
Marine Science and recent aerial photography (ground truthed by
site visits). Portsmouth's non-tidal wetlands were not mapped
nor analyzed as part of this study, because these freshwater
wetlands are not direclty connected to Portsmouth's coastal
zone. Coastal wetlands are defined in Virginia as all land
lying between and contiguous to mean water and an elevation
above mean water equal to a factor 1.5 times the mean tidal
range. Wetland types were classified using guidelines prepared
by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (pursuant to Chapter 2.1 of Title
62.1, Code of Virginia). Submerged aquatic vegetation such as
eelgrass and widgeongrass were not surveyed: High nutrient and
turbidity conditions in the Elizabeth River system preclude
extensive bed growth.

-48-

1. Tidal Flat Wetlands

Significantly, 333 acres of non-vegetated tidal flat wetlands
exist along the James River, Craney Creek, the coast between the
mouths of Craney Creek and the Western Branch, and along some
shore segments of the Western Branch. Most of these areas are
sand/mud mixed flats (Type XV), and sand flats (Type XIV) with
some mud flats (Type XVI). Approximately two percent of
Portsmouth's beach is intertidal beach (Type XIII), primarily
along the Elizabeth River between the Western Branch and Craney
Creek. These non-vegetated wetlands also have shown a recent
trend of decline.

2. Emergent Wetlands

Approximately 502 acres of emergent wetlands remain along
Portsmouth's coastline (see Table 2-3 and Figure 2-1). These
emergent wetlands are primarily confined to tidal creek basins
with segments of narrow fringe, point or pocket marsh along
parts of the Elizabeth River and some creek segments. Roughly
30 percent of Portsmouth's coast is lined by narrow fringe marsh
and another 25 percent encloses more extensive marshes. The
largest contiguous portion of emergent wetlands (about 108
acres) is along Hoffler Creek, which flows into the James River
along Portsmouth's northwest boundary. Other creek systems with
relatively large embayment marshes are Craney, Sterns, Baines,
and Paradise Creeks. Most of Portsmouth's emergent wetland
acreage is a collection of many smaller embayment and fringe
marshes. Most smaller marsh areas still perform valuable
functions related to wetlands.

0 Saltmarsh Cordgrass (Type I) is the primary vegetation in
the emergent wetlands. This type dominates both embayment
and fringe acreage.
0 Saltbush Community (Type IV) comprises a narrow band of
highwater bush and marsh elder shrubs along the upland
borders of most marshes. This community is most prevalent
in the Hull and Sterns Creek drainages.

Some areas of greater diversity within the saltmarshes
could be classified as Brackish Water Mixed (Type XII)
Communities. These are in small areas of Baines, Hoffler
and Paradise Creeks. Plants in these areas include marsh
fleabane, saltmarsh aster, water hemp, seaside goldenrod
and rushes.

Saltmeadow (Type II), comprised mostly of saltmeadow hay,
fills portions of wider creek basins, such as Hoffler and
Baines, at elevations slightly higher than saltmarsh
cordgrass.

-49-

Tabl e 2-3

Major Aerial Extent of the
Coastal Wetlands of Portsmouth, Virginia

Saltmarsh Complex by Area in
Drainage Segment Acres

Hoffler Creek (Portsmouth side only) 107.6
Western Branch (exclusive of tidal flats) 68.7
Craney Creek 97.5
Baines Creek 55.4
Paradise Creek 31.5
Sterns Creek (Portsmouth side only) 37.6
Lake Kingman 22.5
Lily Creek 29.7
Creek at Pinehurst 7.9
Scotts Creek 5.7
Creek at Waterview/Westhaven 17.2
Creek at River Park 15.1
Creek at Cox Property 4.5
Hulls Creek 0.8

Total Saltmarsh Acres 501.7 (0.78 square miles)

Tidal Flats
by Drainage Basins Area in
or Neighborhoods Acres

Hoffler Creek/Rivershore 51.6
Craney Creek 56.7
Cox Property and adjacent 89.1
Bayview Blvd. 19.8
Greenbriar to Westhaven 86.2
Sterling Point 15.3
Park Manor 13.8

Total Tidal Flats 332.5 (0.52 square miles)

Total Area of Major Coastal Wetlands 834.2 (1.30 square miles)

Source: Woolpert Consultants, Aerial and Ground Reconnaissance, 12/7/87 and
1/13-14/88 (Acreages obtained by planimetry).

-50-

0 Cattails (Type VI) fringe some marsh borders, especially
where freshwater runoff collects. The largest expanses are
at Hoffler and Baines Creeks.

0 Black Needlerush (Type III) forms clumps 10 to 20 yards
wide in other communities in Hoffler, Baines, Hulls,
Waterview/Westhaven, Sterling Point and Craney Creeks.
0 Reedgrass (Type VIII) is spotty but generally distributed.
It is most prevalent at Paradise, Craney, Scotts,
Waterview/Westhaven and Baines Creeks.

3. Wet Forest

Wet forest is adjacent marsh edges at several locations. The
widest buffer areas are along Hoffler and Craney Creeks. Trees
include sycamores, red maple, sweet gums and ashes.
Honeysuckles, trumpet creeper, poison sumac and bittersweet are
prevalent in some places. Natural upland woods (most extensive
north of the Western Branch) include loblolly pines, oaks,
American holly, sweet gum, wax myrtle and redbud. Popular
planted species are Southern magnolias, crepe myrtles, live
oaks, dogwoods, pines and Eastern red cedars.

WILDLIFE

The diversity and abundance of wildlife along Portsmouth's coastal
zone are directly related to the distribution and variety of water
and vegetation resources in the area. Of the 199 major wildlife
species recorded for Portsmouth, 107 are associated with deep water
or wetland habitats. Of the 35 game species present, 29 use these
same habitats. Historically, the coastal environments of Portsmouth
have offered the most diverse, extensive and important wildlife
habitats available. Today, the decrease in water quality, submergent
vegetation beds and coastal wetlands has reduced the productivity and
quality of the aquatic ecosystem.

Physical and chemical water quality parameters have shifted to ranges
that support a less desirable and commercial community. The loss of
wetlands and the increased sedimentation and pollution have adversely
affected the spawning and feeding capability of remaining
commercially valuable finfish and shellfish in the river. Reduced
aquatic and wetland vegetation has also decreased the value of the
area for waterfowl.and other birds and mammals, including a number of
sensitive, rare or endangered species. The disappearance or
shrinkage of the original tidal flats has adversely affected many
shorebirds and blue crabs and also some fish.

-51-

The following description is an overview of animal life in the
Elizabeth River and along Portsmouth's coast. Attention is given
primarily to species of commercial, game or aesthetic importance.

1. Shellfish

Oysters tolerate wide variations in salinity, temperature and
water level. Strong currents carrying adequate particulate food
over suitable attachment substrate are the primary requirements
for oyster bed establishment. Figure 1 shows public and private
lease oyster grounds, which have formed in many locations
throughout the wider portion of the Elizabeth River. These
grounds are presently condemned (closed to harvest) but could
reopen if levels of coliforms, PAHs and metals were reduced.
Neither oysters nor hard shell clams are present in very high
densities. Because of the pollution stresses and prevalence of
MSX disease in the Elizabeth River, it is questionable whether
the river adds greatly to the seed oyster budget of the James
River. Commercial harvest in the Elizabeth River is almost
entirely confined to blue crabs. In 1986, about 241,108 pounds
of blue crab were harvested, with a net cash value of $54,400.
Most blue crabs spawn at thimble shoals, but limited spawning
occurs in the Elizabeth River.

2. Finfish

Little information is available on fish species in the Elizabeth
River because it is virtually unused as a commercial fishery.
Studies near the mouth of the river have found 30 to 34 species
of fish. Commercially important fish found in the river include
American and gizzard shad, river herring, striped bass, white
perch, catfish, spot, Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic croaker.
Although the Elizabeth River system is not directly a commercial
fishery and most important commercial fish spawn in fresher or
more saline waters, the river does play a role in supporting the
abundant and diverse commercial and recreational fishery of the
lower Chesapeake Bay. The Elizabeth River may serve as a
nursery area for semianadromous fish such as striped bass, white
perch and gizzard shad. The river may be a secondary nursery
area for Atlantic menhaden, spot and Atlantic croaker (based on
a ratio of young fish in survey catches). Spawning species may
include Bay anchovies, Atlantic silversides, killifish,
hogchokers, mummichogs, naked gobies, sheepshead minnows and
winter flounders. The Elizabeth River supports good populations
of forage fish such as mummichogs, bay anchovies, Atlantic
silversides and young Alantic menhaden. Other seasonally
abundant species include hogchokers and spot.

-52-

3. Terrestrial and Semiaguatic Life

The terrestrial and semiaquatic lifeforms that inhabit or
occasionally visit coastal wetlands are a diverse assemblage.
The tidal flats support high densities of amphipods, worms,
clams and snails that serve as food for blue crabs, fish, birds
and mammals. The saltmarshes support abundant worm, insect,
snail, grass shrimp and fiddler crab populations. Fiddler crabs
in particular serve as a major food base for many fish, bird and
mammal consumers. The tidal marshes support Atlantic ribbed
mussels among other large molluscs.

Some 30 species of amphibians (salamanders, frogs and toads) and
21 species of reptiles (lizards, snakes and turtles) are among
the wildlife species of Portsmouth. These animals were not
evident during the winter site visits for this survey. About
half (26) of these species primarily inhabit the salt and
freshwater habitats available.

4. Birds

At least 103 bird species have been recorded in Portsmouth.
Most use either the open water or wetland habitats available in
Portsmouth. Twenty-six species, primarily waterfowl, are game
species within the State. Although these species are not
directly available as game in Portsmouth, use of the habitat in
Portsmouth helps stabilize the population in the region. During
field surveys, 47 winter resident bird species were observed.
The most common waterfowl observed were hooded mergansers,
mallards, lesser scaup, American widgeons, canvasbacks and
bufflehead. Other common water birds included double-crested
cormorants, ring-billed and herring gulls, American coots,
sanderlings, kingfishers, great blue herons and clapper rails.
Some other species observed in or over wetlands included
mockingbirds, song and swamp sparrows, killdeer, American
kestrels, Cooper's hawks, marsh hawks, common and fish crows,
and mourning doves. (Although only great blue herons were
observed during the winter survey, the wetlands are home to many
herons and egrets year round. These birds bring a particular
beauty to the marshes.)

5. Mammals

About 33 mammal species are known to inhabit the Portsmouth
area. Only half are common. Gray squirrels, perhaps the most
prominent species, make little use of coastal habitats. The
most common marsh species include the meadow jumping mouse,
Virginia opossum, raccoon, marsh rice rat and long-tailed
weasel.

-53-

RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

No federally-listed threatened or endangered species are known to
have been observed in the corporation limits of Portsmouth. The most
likely species to occur, based an geographical location and habitat
availability, would be migrants such as loggerhead turtles or bald
eagles. Other marine turtles or shortnose sturgeons are secondary
possibilities.

Two federally-proposed threatened species, the southern bog lemming
and Rafinesque's big-eared bat, may be present in Portsmouth. Though
primarily found in the Dismal Swamp, southern bog lemmings have been
recorded in Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Norfolk, Suffolk and Virginia
Beach. This species is a year-round resident that prefers grassy
fresh wetlands predominated by giant cane, softstem bulrush and
sedges. Red maple is the most common tree in suitable habitat. Home
ranges are less than half an acre. This habitat is restricted to
inland wetlands, the headwaters of tidal creeks and perhaps a few
coastal terraces beyond tidal influence. The Rafinesque's big-eared
bat is known to be in the Dismal Swamp area. It commonly roosts in
abandoned structures by permanent water and is very sensitive to
human disturbance.

Two state-listed endangered species have been recorded near
Portsmouth. The chicken turtle is known to be from one location in
the cypress ponds of Seashore State Park. This species could occurin
still water such as ponds, lakes, ditches and swamps. The Eastern
tiger salamander is known to be in Virginia from a breeding
population in Augusta County and other collections in York County.
This salamander requires freshwater ponds and heavy organic detritus
or fallen logs, a habitat not widely available in Portsmouth.

Some additional species, listed as sensitive by the Virginia Office
of Game and Inland Fish, are especially prone to disease and decline
due to their exacting habitat requirements or sensitivity to
synthetic chemicals such as pesticides. As a result, their
population dynamics can give the first clues to problems with habitat
variables such as available acreage, hydrology, water quality or
terrestrial pollution. Table 2-4 lists these species and some
details about their biology.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The cultural resources discussed in this section are archaeological
remains of prehistoric or historic habitation of Portsmouth and
historically significant architecture in the form of single
structures or designated districts. Portsmouth has more sites an the

-54-

National Register of Historic Places than any other city in Virginia.
In 1988, the General Assembly designated the Lower James River as a
state Historic River (H.B. 935). Many of Portsmouth's cultural
resources are quite near the existing coast, indicating that early
inhabitants exhibited the same close interdependency on coastal water
resources that continues today. Cultural resources along
Portsmouth's coastal zone are shown in Figure 2-2.

The known archaeological sites for Portsmouth are concentrated along
the Elizabeth River'north of the Western Branch and along Craney
Creek. These sites are cataloged by the Virginia Historic Landmarks
Commission's Research Center for Archaeology with a three part code
such as 44 Pm 1. Figure 2-2 shows only the last digit of this code
(designating site number) because every site is in Norfolk County
(the meaning of code number 44) and in the City of Portsmouth
(the meaning of the code designation Pm).

Most of the archaeological sites are affiliated with the Archaic
Indian culture (6000 B.C. to 1000 B.C.) and are represented by quartz
and quartzite flakes, which demonstrate that stone was used to
fashion implements. Site 44 Pm 2 (2 on the map) is a nineteenth
century brick foundation, including sand-mortared bricks, walls and a
chimney base.

Site 44 Pm 12 (12 on the map) is primarily affiliated with the
Woodland Indian culture (1000 B.C. to 800 A.D.) and is represented by
flakes and cord-impressed potsherds. This site could be the Indian
village of Mattanock. This large site also has features of
eighteenth and nineteenth century European habitation. Specimens
collected included Chinese porcelain, pearlware and unglazed
earthenware.

Site 44 Pm 12 is the only known site in Portsmouth that is
recommended for a Phase II archaeological survey. This does not
preclude the possibility that additional ground surveys, new
construction or reconstruction may reveal other areas significant
enough to require documentation and excavation.

Four of the five Historic Districts in Portsmouth are adjacent or
near the Elizabeth River. The largest is the Cradock Historic
District (127-37) along Paradise Creek, which contains construction
from the World War I era. This neighborhood was one of the first
planned communities built in the United States. The second largest
historic district is Port Norfolk (124-51), which is adjacent Hull
Creek and the Western Branch. A third district, designated
Portsmouth Olde Towne (124-34) by Crawford Bay, is the old
residential area of Portsmouth, which was annexed in 1763. The
fourth district, Parkview Historic District (124-55), contains many
old homes just northwest of Portsmouth Olde Towne.

-55-

TABLE 2-4
Portsmouth Coastal Zone Land Use Plan
Sensitive Species within the Portsmouth Area

Species Status Wetland Use Major Stress

Chicken turtle e 1 Habitat alteration - drainage
Eastern tiger salamander e 1 Habitat loss
Red-shouldered hawk s 2* Pesticides
Sharp-shinned hawk s 2* Pesticides
Little blue heron s 1* Habitat alteration - water quality and
depth, and insecticides
American kestrel s 2* Pesticides
Black-crowned night heron s J* Pesticides
Virginia rail s JL* Loss and alteration of extensive
marshes
King Rail S J* Loss and alteration of extensive
marshes
Big-brown bat s 2* Habitat loss, pesticides
Evening bat s 2* Habitat loss, pesticides
Rafinesque's big-eared bat T 2 Habitat loss, pesticides
Southern bog lemming T J* Habitat loss, pesticides

e - State endangered 1 - Primary habitat importance
s - State sensitive 2 - Secondary habitat importance
T - Federally proposed threatened * - Observed in Portsmouth

Source (Virginia Office of Game and Inland Fish; Virginia Natural Heritage Program)

Three other historical properties are along the Main Branch of the
Elizabeth River. These are, from north to south: the Portsmouth U.S.
Naval Hospital (124-36), the Seaboard Coastline Building (124-53) and
Drydock No. 1 in the U.S. Naval Shipyard.

WETLANDS

The wetlands have a strong connection to every coastal natural
resource in the Portsmouth coastal zone. For this reason, it is
appropriate to describe in a separate section how vital it is to the
viability of Portsmouth's coastal zone to preserve the wetlands.

General Land Form

Existing wetlands offer opportunity for open space, vistas and
recreational/educational uses while increasing residential property
values.

Soils

Many types of wetlands are highly effective shoreline stabilizers,
sediment traps and erosion buffers. A marsh only two feet wide has
significant value as a sediment trap. Extensive root systems bind
and build shoreline soils.

Hydrology

Existing wetlands, especially tidal flats and saltmarsh cordgrass,
dissipate wave energy and further control erosion. Wetland land and
water interfaces produce specific habitat chracteristics of moderated
flow regime, water levels and salinity that support fish and wildlife
production. Many wetlands act as very efficient flood and storm
buffers by absorbing encroaching water.

Water Quality

Wetlands not only trap sediment, but also transform and assimilate
most pollutants such as the nutrients threatening the Elizabeth
River. Natural processes within wetlands also help offset poor DO,
BOD, pH and temperature conditions.

Vegetation

Saltmarsh cordgrass communities are highly productive ecosystems (up
to 10 tons/acre/year) and as such are the basis of many food pathways
on land and in the water. These marshes, especially coupled with
tidal flats, are strongly connected to estuarine and marine systems.
Tidal action flushes roughly half of all net production of salt
marshes into adjacent waters in the form of detritus (decayed plant
material).

-57-

Fish and Wildlife

Marsh flush detritus supplies a rich source of energy that stimulates
estuarine and marine productivity. All shellfish and about 95
percent of all commercial fish depend on this source, either directly
or indirectly, for food. The marshes also provide spawning and
nursery habitat. Many birds, amphibians and reptiles depend heavily
on wetlands-produced food sources such as the plants themselves, fish
and other aquatic organisms. The cumulative benefit to both aquatic
and terrestrial animals increases with the extent and diversity of
the wetland habitats available.

Endangered Species

Although wetlands cover only five percent of the land in the United
States, 35 percent of the federally-listed endangered species are
dependent on them. All the federal-listed and state-listed species
likely to be found in Portsmouth depend on wetlands.

Cultural Resources

Many wetland areas in Portsmouth as in the rest of the tidewater
region are of historic or archeological interest because of the
presence of shipwrecks, cargo or prehistoric Indian habitation.

-58-

ANALYSIS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

This section will examine the built environment of coastal
Portsmouth. It will analyze the existing land use and historic
development patterns, zoning, circulation and access, infrastructure,
recreation and open space and economic development opportunities and
constraints along Portsmouth's coastline today.

EXISTING LAND USE AND HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

This section examines the existing land use along the Portmouth
coastline. The existing land use patterns are illustrated in Figure
2-3.

Residential

Residential uses, both single and multi-family, are the primary land
use throughout coastal Portsmouth. Most residential land uses are
single-family residences.

The residential uses are primarily along the Western Branch of the
Elizabeth River, the south shoreline of Scotts Creek, Sterns Creek,
Barnes Creek, Craney Creek and Hulls Creek. Other residential uses
are along the south shore of Paradise Creek, and new residential
developments are being constructed near Hoffler Creek.

Most of the residential units along the waterfront are of high
quality -- some in the $100,000 to $200,000 price range. Most
waterfront homes have private docking facilities and therefore have
no need for public boat ramp access.

Commercial and Office

Commercial land uses occur throughout Portsmouth's coastline. These
uses are predominantly restaurants, marinas or marine-related
commercial uses. Other commercial uses are located at the far
reaches of the Elizabeth River tributaries not accessible by boat,
even during high tide. Office land uses are exclusively along the
downtown waterfront.

Commercial and office land uses currently make up only a small
portion of coastal Portsmouth, but two downtown riverfront sites
could be developed into commercial or office space. The Old Coast
Guard Property just south of downtown is another potential location
for commercial and office development.

-59-

Industrial

Industrial land uses make up a large portion of the Portsmouth
coastline. Pinner's Point Marine Terminal and the Virginia Chemical
plant in West Norfolk are two major industrial locations. Other
industrial uses are along Paradise Creek.

Government uses are a separate land use category, but many government
functions along the Portsmouth coastline are industrial. If these
were included as industrial land uses, the size of the "working
waterfront" would increase significantly.

Most remaining tracts of large vacant land are zoned for industrial
use, and the City of Portsmouth's current Future Land Use Plan
indicates these areas as industrial. If these areas are developed as
planned, the amount to industrial land will increase significantly.

United States Government

The coastline has an abundance of federal installations and
facilities. The United States Naval Shipyard, United States Naval
Hospital, United States Coast Guard Base, Craney Island Fuel Depot
and Craney Island dredge disposal basin all have water frontage.

Except for the Craney Island dredge disposal basin, these uses are
not expected to change. Craney Island dredge disposal basin could,
in 25 to 50 years, become an industrial or recreational use.
However, the likelihood of Craney Island dredge disposal basin
reverting from federal jurisdiction is presently remote.

Parks and Open Space

The coastline has several areas of recreational uses or natural open
spaces. City Park, along the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River,
has two public power boat ramps, one public sail boat ramp,
playgrounds and a golf course. A private golf club, Elizabeth Manor
Country Club, also is located along the Western Branch. A public
beach near Old Bayview is underutilized as a recreational asset and
is not maintained.

Most open spaces are environmentally sensitive areas such as tidal
creeks, floodplains and their associated salt marshes. These land
uses are located throughout the coastal areas.

Vacant and Agricultural Uses

Few vacant, developable areas remain along coastal Portsmouth. The
largest vacant area is the Cox Property, a 600-acre site in West
Norfolk. This site is currently a combination of agricultural and
open space uses and is zoned for industrial use.

-60-

Approximately 37 acres of northern shoreline of Scotts Creek are
currently vacant and zoned for industrial use. A plan being
developed for Scotts Creek, however, shows this site being developed
as a "marine industrial park" that would compliment the residential
nature of the Creek's southern shoreline.

A final, major vacant area is a triangular tract of land bounded by
Victory Boulevard, Paradise Creek and the southern City limits. This
tract is also zoned as industrial and is shown as an industrial use
in the Future Land Use Plan.

Agricultural uses along the waterfront occur at the Cox Property and
along Craney Creek and Hoffler Creek. Agricultural uses are being
converted to residential and mixed-use developments. It is expected
.that agricultural uses will continue to diminish as development
pressure continues.

Historic Development Patterns

In 1752, Colonel William Crawford, an English entrepreneur, plotted
65 acres of what is now known as the City of Portsmouth. The town
grew and, in 1763, had its first annexation. In 1767, Colonel
Crawford and Andrew Sprawle founded the Towne of Gosport and a
shipyard south of Portsmouth. This shipyard first served the British
Fleet, then the United States Navy, then the Navy of the Confederate
States of America. The Towne of Gosport was annexed by Portsmouth in
1784, forever linking the City's economy to maritime uses.

Through the first half of the nineteenth century, Portsmouth
continued to thrive as a port-town. In 1830, the Naval Hospital was
completed, and, in 1834. the first drydock in America was constructed
at the Navy Shipyard. The War between the States brought both
physical and economic destruction to Portsmouth, and the effects of
this war were felt until the end of the century.

At the end of the nineteenth century, the City began to prosper
again. In 1894, Portsmouth annexed what is now known as Parkview,
and by the end of the century, Portsmouth's population had grown to
17,527 people.

The twentieth century brought continued growth to Portsmouth. In
1909, the City annexed Scottsville and Prentiss Place. The outbreak
of World War I brought thousands of shipyard workers to Portsmouth
and with them, a boom in housing construction and creation of the
Villages of Cradock and Truxton. At the end of the War, in 1919,
Portsmouth annexed the Port Norfolk area, and by 1920, the City's
population had reached 54,387.

-61-

The Great Depression adversely affected Portsmouth as it did the rest
of the-nation, but by the end of the 1930s, activity at the Naval
Shipyard began to increase as a prelude to World War II. As with the
first World War, a great influx of workers created the need for more
housing. The City once again annexed land in 1948. This annexation
and post-war industrial expansion pushed the City's 1950 population
to 80,039. In 1952 the first Elizabeth River tunnel was completed,
and, 10 years later, a second tunnel was completed. The City
continued to annex surrounding areas. In 1960, Cradock, Mexander
Park, Simonsdale, Elizabeth Manor and other suburban areas were
annexed, bringing the City's population up to 114,773.

Industrial development continued through the 1960s with the opening
of the Portsmouth Marine Terminal in 1967. The City's land mass grew
significantly in 1968 with the annexation of West Norfolk, Craney
Island and parts of Churchland. During the late 1960s, the
population trend reversed, and the City began losing population. The
1970 population was only 110,963. Population losses continued
through the 1970s, and by 1980 Portsmouth's population stood at
104,577.

The 1980s have been a time of economic turn-around for Portsmouth.
During this time there have been several new subdivisions and the
Sandy Pointe condominium complex has been developed. A downtown
revitalization effort has also been devloped. The old Beasly Farm
site is being developed into a mixed-use development to be called
River Pointe, and there is interest in developing the northern shore
of Scotts Creek.

Portsmouth has been, and is, economically tied to the Elizabeth
River. From the early days as a port dependent on the river to ship
goods to and from inland plantations to its present-day capacity as a
key military and commercial port, Portsmouth has relied on the coast
for its survival.

ZONING AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

This section examines existing subdivision and zoning regulations
along Portsmouth's coastline. The zoning districts are illustrated
in Figure 2-4.

Overview of the City of Portsmouth Land Use Regulations

1. Zoning Ordinances

The most direct controls Portsmouth can exercise over
development and land use are the regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance. The current Zoning Ordinance addresses coastal zone
management issues in a limited way. Two zones, the W-1
Waterfront District and the P-1 Preservation District, are
intended to regulate uses appropriate on the waterfront.

-62-

The W-1 zone is a mixed use district, which allows limited
office use, marinas and other commercial, recreation and
residential uses. The district is intended to be developed at a
relatively high intensity. Buildings with more than 10 stories
are allowed a 60-percent lot coverage, and buildings with fewer
than 10 stories are allowed a 90-percent lot coverage. There
are currently three W-1 zones in Scotts Creek and Crawford
Parkway near the Naval Hospital. This zoning district is
specifically intended for use in the area of the Elizabeth River
and Crawford Parkway. All three W-1 zones are developed with
marinas and some additional restaurant and residential uses.

The P-1 District is intended for environmentally sensitive
areas, parkland and open space. Permitted uses in the district
include low-intensity recreational uses, cemeteries, and crop
and tree farming. Portsmouth currently has only one P-1 zone:
The City Park and the Olive Branch cemetery along the Western
Branch. These are in open space use, in conformance with the
regulations.

Much of the shoreline is zoned for residential use along the
Western Branch and along most of the tributaries that feed off
of it. The eastern coastline along the Southern Branch and Main
Stem is predominantly zoned for manufacturing and U.S. Navy and
Coast Guard activity. The exception is the D-1 Downtown zone
just south of the Naval Hospital.

Development along the shoreline will have direct effects on the
quality of the coastal environment. The controls placed on new
development on limited vacant tracts will have the most direct
impacts on the shoreline. Redevelopment and further regulation
of existing development areas can also improve the coastal
environment. Development thorughout Portsmouth will have an
indirect effect on the coastal environment. Point and non-point
source pollution, erosion and sedimentation are affected by
inland development as well as by coastal development.
Techniques can be included in the zoning ordinance to have a
positive effect on the coastal environment. Changes to the text
or map of the ordinance that direct new development on vacant
tracts in manufacturing zones would make it easier for the city
to control point source pollution, erosion and sedimentation.
Modifications to zones regulating developed residential,
commercial and industrial zones would have a less immediate
effect but could improve non-point source pollution, erosion and
sedimentation in the long term.

-63-

In existing residential zones, several permitted uses and
allowable development practices may be adding to the degradation
of the shoreline environment.

0 Crop and tree farming are permitted uses in the R-150,
R-100, R-75, R-75-S, R-60, and R-60-A districts. The
chemicals and plowing techniques used in modern farming
contribute significantly to non-point source pollution and
to erosion. In districts that are developing as
residential, particularly in R-100 to R-60, agriculture is
not compatible and does not need to be a permitted use.
Although agriculture is not a predominant or economic use
in these districts, permiting it creates the potential for
it to develop without any provisions for mitigating
potential problems. Agriculture is also an inappropriate
use in the P-1 district, particularly given the intention
of that district.

Stormwater runoff carries non-point sources pollutants and
erodes land. The amount of ground covered with impervious
surfaces such as concrete, asphalt, buildings, sidewalks,
inground swimming pools and parking lots directly effects
storm water run-off. The more surface covered, the greater
the runoff. Lot coverage should be further restricted in
all districts and should be defined as any impervious
surface covering the ground and not just as buildings.

Industrial and commercial zoning district modifications also
have the potential to improve shoreline quality. Most vacant
land along the shoreline is zoned for manufacturing. The
permitted uses in the M-1 and M-2 manufacturing zones allow a
wide range of uses, some of them with the potential to
contribute to point and non-point source pollution more than
others. General regulations could require establishments to
document the materials stored and the use to be made of them.
Further, uses that could be hazardous should be designated
conditional uses rather than permitted uses. Conditional use
regulations could require special conditions and a special
permit for the uses. Records of these permits would help City
Staff keep track of potential point source pollution problems,
especially for small establishments. Limiting the location of
these uses would further reduce the threat of point source
pollution.

The planned unit districts, planned office park (POP), commerce
park district (CP) and the residential planned unit development
overlays are designed to provide flexible, compatible
developments on parcels over 20 acres. Aside from requiring
open space and review of applications for compatibility with the
comprehensive plans, there are no specific criteria relative to
environmental impacts.

-64-

2. Subdivision Regulations

The Portsmouth Subdivision Regulations direct the location and
layout of much of the residential development that has occurred
recently in the City, particularly in the north part of the
City. These regulations also guide the development of
commercial and industrial land when subdivision of property
takes place. Subdivision regulations are primarily designed to
control the infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks and
utilities. These regulations work with zoning regulations,
which guide land uses in certain parts of the City.

The Portsmouth subdivision regulations address environmental
issues in several provisions. The regulations prohibit
development on land that is unsuitable due to flooding, poor
drainage, or "other situations that could be hazardous to
residents." Regulations also provide that natural features
should be preserved whenever 'possible.

Anyone applying for a subdivision permit must submit an
application that documents the environmental features of the
site including water boundaries, high waterline, bulkheads,
piers, top of bank and toe of slope. The applicant is also
required to submit plans for controlling possible sedimentation
and erosion problems during construction and after. Specific
criteria for review are not identified in the regulations.
Review by City Staff is required to ensure appropriate
development techniques. Offsite drainage requirements are
reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure appropriateness.

The subdivision regulations control the width of streets,
sidewalks and parking areas. This controls the amount of ground
coverage by impervious surfaces, and as discussed in the
previous section on zoning, has an impact on storm water runoff.

3. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance

The erosion and sedimentation control ordinance requires that
anyone altering or disturbing land must obtain a permit, with
the exception of those using the land for public purposes. These
guidelines deal primarily with construction activity. Permits
are required for activity based on a developer's compliance with
appropriate mitigation techniques during construction.

-65-

CIRCULATION AND ACCESS

This section analyzes existing public access and private access to
the waterfront as well as the existing roads and streets to these
areas.

Public Access

Public access includes both boat and pedestrian access. The largely
residential, industrial and governmental nature of Portsmouth's
coastline leaves few areas for the general public to gain access to
the water by foot or boat.

City Park has Portsmouth's only public boat ramps: two power boat
ramps and one sailboat ramp. The power boat ramps were poorly
designed and are currently being reconstructed to better facilitate
the boat launchings. The sailboat ramp is adequate for small sail
boats (10 to 15 feet long). It is inadequate for larger sail boats
without motors because these boats have difficulty navigating to an
area where the water is deep enough to allow insertion of the center
board. City Park is also one of the few public places where the
waterfront can be viewed. Downtown Portsmouth offers public access
as do areas along Crawford Bay. An additional public access area is
the Old Bayview beach. The continued use of this area is uncertain
because of the uncertainty of how the proposed Western Freeway will
connect with the Martin Luther King Expressway. Public access in
other areas is hindered by private boat slips, private marinas and
industrial and governmental facilities.

Vehicular circulation to these areas is adequate because each public
access area is served by a thoroughfare which is designed for higher
volumes of traffic. Potential public access areas will be discussed
later in the recreation and open space section.

Private Access

Private access to the coastline is excellent. Most homes with water
frontage have private docks for their boats and there are several
marinas for people without water frontage to dock their boats. The
City of Portsmouth has aggressively sought to attract boat owners and
marina expansion. The City cut its personal property tax rate on
boats in 1985 from $4.35 to 50 cents in an attempt to become similar
to Wilmington, Delaware which has successfully lured boat owners and
marina expansion with no boat tax.
Vehicular circulation to the private marinas, however, ofteilroutes
traffic through established residential neighborhoods. Although not
as disruptive as trailered traffic, these marinas do generate a
traffic volume that is higher than normal.

-66-

INFRASTRUCTURE

This section examines the City's existing water, sanitary and storm
sewer systems to determine if the major vacant undeveloped areas are
serviced by water and sewer lines and what the major drainage
outfalls are in the City. The following section (Coastal Zone Impact
Dynamics) examines the potential impacts of stormwater drainage on
natural resources. Therefore, this section of this analysis will not
be as detailed.

Undeveloped Areas

1) Cox Property

The Cox Property is not curre ntly serviced by public water or
sewer lines. Due to the proximity of the U.S. Coast Guard Base
to the north and the Virginia Chemical Industrial Complex to the
south, there should be little problem with extending both water
and sewer lines to the Cox property.

2) Scotts Creek

The Scotts Creek site is serviced by both public water and sewer
lines. The site's proximity to the Portsmouth Marine Terminal
and Pinner's Point Sewage Treatment Plant should ensure the
availability of these utilities.

3) Vacant Area Along Paradise Creek

This site is serviced by both public water and sewer lines. The
site's proximity to the U.S. Naval Shipyard and related
industrial areas should ensure the availability of these
utilities.

4) Old Coast Guard Site

Because of the previous use of this site, it is serviced by both
public water and sewer.

5) Craney Island Fuel Depot

This site is serviced by both public water and sewer lines.

6) Craney Island Landfill

This site is not serviced by public utilities. However, due to
its proximity to existing developments, extentions of utilities
to this site should not be difficult. Of more importance would
be the suitability of the soils in regards to the laying of
underground pipe.

-67-

Drainage Outfalls

Drainage outfalls are discussed in more detail in the next section
(Coastal Zone Impact Dynamics). The existing major stormwater
outfalls that drain the City of Portsmouth are illustrated in Figure
2-5. These outfalls have caused some creeks to experience filling
and in an extreme case, necessitated the construction of a box
culvert for continued drainage. Any new developments will contribute
to this problem unless proper mitigation measures are undertaken.

RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE

This section builds on information already presented in the existing
land use and circulation and access sections. Specifically, this
section identifies existing recreation and open space areas and
identifies potential new recreation areas and open space areas that
should be preserved to protect environmental quality.

The major recreation area is City Park. The City of Portsmouth's
Recreation Plan recommended developing additional water-related parks
throughout the City. The recommended sites for additional boat ramps
included Elm Street in Scotts Creek near the west Norfolk Bridge in
the short-term and an Paradise Creek in the long-term. Parks were
recommended to be developed at Scotts Creek (in conjunction with the
boat ramp) and at Bayview Boulevard.

Based on field observations and interviews, several other areas
should be considered for future park and recreational development.
These areas as well as the existing recommended areas are shown in
Figure 2-5.

As Figure 2-5 indicates, few areas remain for recreational
development. However, there are opportunities to develop park and
recreational facilities as part of larger commercial or residential
developments.

Several environmentally sensitive open space areas should be
preserved. These areas center on saltmarsh cordgrass marshes in
upper creek drainages. Of particular importance is the Hoffler Creek
wetlands area and the tidal creeks that penetrate into the Cox
Property. Since these areas are just beginning to be developed, any
development at these sites should include mitigation measures to
protect these vital natural areas.

-68-

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

This section describes economic development opportunities and
constraints along the coastline.

Cox Property

The Cox Property represents an opportunity for Portsmouth to attract
a marine-related industry that requires a large land mass and
deep-water port access. The proposed Western Freeway would also
provide excellent vehicular access to this site.

The two tidal creeks that penetrate into the Cox Property should not
be disturbed and could constrain development. The tidal flats all
along the coast pose a significant constraint to port dredging
because they are protected under Chapter 300, Acts of Assembly, 1982.
Many archaeological sites are also present, including one recommended
for further survey. The City does not own this parcel of land and
the current owners are not presently considering its sale.

Scotts Creek

Scotts Creek's northern coastline offers an excellent opportunity for
some type of economic development. This site is publicly owned and
plans call for the development of a "marine industrial park" for this
site. The mouth of Scotts Creek marks the zero-mile marker on the
intercoastal waterway, offering an interesting marketing tool if the
area is developed.

Vehicular access to the site is poor, but planned improvement via an
interchange off of the Martin Luther King Expressway will help.
Scotts Creek currently lacks adequate depth to accommodate large
pleasure craft during low tide, making boat access questionable also.
The site itself is somewhat narrow and any non-industrial use such as
an up-scale marina or restaurant would need to be buffered from the
Portsmouth Marine Terminal's heavy industrial uses. This adds to the
perception that the site is narrow. The number of marinas that could
be constructed from the shoreline to the main channel of the creek
would also be constrained.

Vacant Area Along Paradise Creek

The vacant area along Paradise Creek at the southern city limits
offers an area for further industrial development. The location of
this site south of the Naval Shipyard provides what would seem to be
an ideal location for some kind of contractor or vendor who supplies
the Navy. Vehicular and ship access appear to be adequate.

-69-

The site is small and any development would be constrained to some
degree. Overhead power lines are also present at this site which
may, in effect, divide the site into parcels that are too small for
development.

Old Coast Guard Site

The Old Coast Guard site, sandwiched between the downtown and the
Naval shipyard, offers opportunities for office, commercial and light
industrial development. This area is serviced by all utilities and
has deep water access. The site's proximity to Interstate 264 and
the downtown tunnel also provides it with adequate vehicular access
which will get even better once the second tunnel is opened.

The limited amount of water frontage will constrain the type of
development that could take place. The relatively barren nature of
the surrounding area and the site's distance from the downtown core
could make it initially difficult to attract development.

Craney Island Fuel Depot

The large land mass upon which this facility is located offers a
long-term development opportunity. Much of the land is currently
underutilized and the need to provide a land-side refueling depot for
Naval vessels is decreasing. This would then provide additional areas
for industrial developments that need deep water access.

This site's availability is more than 20 years in the future. The
willingness of the Department of Defense (DOD) to relinquish this
property is unknown but is not likely to be very great. Even if the
DOD relinquished this site, other federal agencies (i.e., Department
of Transportation/Coast Guard) would be given first priority on
acquiring the property. The quality of the site -- such as possible
contamination due to fuel spills -- is also unknown.

Craney Island Dredge Disposal Area

The Craney Island dredge disposal area offers an opportunity for
future, long-term mixed-use development. It is likely (due to
soil-bearing strength characteristics) that the future development
could have intense industrial activities along the eastern third of
the site with the western two-thirds developed as a recreational
site. This arrangement would use the most stable soil for industrial
development while providing a recreational "buffer" between this
industrial development and the residences along River Shore Road.

-70-

This site is not likely to be ready for development for 23 to 50
years. There are additional concerns such-as soil contamination
that could constrain development. The largest constraint, however,
is likely to be Portsmouth's inability to acquire the site after the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relinquishes it. The DOD may want to
retain the site for future facility development.

-71-

III. COASTAL ZONE IMPACT DYNAMICS

HISTORIC MOOIFICATIONS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Historic Land Form

The original landscape of Portsmouth was very different from the
urbanized area today. The original forest cover has been cleared,
the great majority of wetlands filled or drained, and the Elizabeth
River has been dredged to provide deep shipping channels. The
Elizabeth River was once twice as wide and half as deep as it is
today. Much of the original sloping marsh waterfront has been
replaced by artificial stabilization in the form of bulkheads and
seawalls. Tidal flats have been dredged. Wide marshes have given
way in many other areas to much thinner fringe marshes. Heavy
waterfront industrialization and shipping traffic are the major
sources of these modifications. Over 40 percent of the Portsmouth
shoreline is artificially stabilized today.

Soils

Agriculture started near Old Portsmouth and gradually replaced the
original forest cover. Clearing spread inland to the west and then
north of the Western Branch. Gradually, residential development
followed the same course. By 1950, only the westernmost portion of
Portsmouth was still in agriculture. Churchland and Twin Pines were
the only concentrated development north of the Western Branch and
were surrounded by agriculture. In the past 40 years, most of those
remaining soils have been further disturbed by residential
development. Most land areas have been graded or filled within
Portsmouth. The most significant areas of original soil are within
creek basins and north of the Western Branch. The above landscape
modifications have tended to increase erosion. This erosion has
resulted in increased cloudiness of Elizabeth River water. This has
reduced photosynthesis and increased nutrients and temperature. All
of these factors have reduced oxygen levels in the river.

Hydrology

The surface water hydrology of Portsmouth is dominated by a network
of stormwater drains, ditches and drainage tile. Only a few areas
retain water or have completely unimpeded flow within stream banks.
Portions of most creeks have experienced construction filling on a
smaller scale than the Elizabeth River but sediment runoff filling on
a relatively larger scale. Among others, there have been partial
construction fills along Baines and Paradise Creeks and at River
Park. One tidal creek near existing Interstate Route 264 has been
completely filled by development and was replaced with a five- by
11-foot box culvert. Most creeks in urbanized areas have experienced
significant sediment filling. Several man-made ponds are separate

-72-

from surface drainage but most act as sediment basins and have
outflows that eventually reach the Elizabeth River drainage. The
Elizabeth River has never had strong flushing characteristics and the
shoreline modifications, channel dredging and location of Craney
Island dredge disposal area may further impede flushing. Many
stormwater outfalls tend to become obstructed by the combination of
heavy sediment in runoff and poor flow/flushing conditions within the
creeks and river. Many stormwater outfalls, by necessity, must also
be within the range of periodic tidal inundation.

The present stormwater infrastructure is seriously deficient in terms
of its location in a flat coastal area with erodible soils and tidal
backwater conditions. A management system that includes all
practicable measures to keep sediment out of the transport pipes and
to minimize off-site transport of water would help eliminate the
present problems. Such a system would integrate improved site design
features to reduce erosion/runoff with in-system structures to retain
silt and water on site. These design measures are discussed in
detail in a later chapter.

Water Quality

Land-disturbing activities, heavy industrialization and shipping have
meant heavy sediment and pollution loads in the Elizabeth River.
Except for low levels of Coliforms (primarily from waterfowl) and
PAHs (from forest fires), most of the sediment and pollutants present
in the rivers today were absent (or nearly so) from the original
system. As would be expected, three centuries of heavy human use
have radically changed both the physical and chemical nature of the
Elizabeth River and its water quality. Several studies have revealed
that Elizabeth River sediments and water can produce toxic and lethal
effects on amphipods, grass shrimp and fish. These effects are most
pronounced in the Southern Branch and are apparently most closely
related to PAHs and other organic toxins. Other tests have shown
heavy metal accumulation in grass shrimp. Shellfish, other than
crabs, may not be harvested from the Elizabeth River due to Coliform
levels. They may not even be removed to cleaner waters to purge
pollutants from them before consumption.

Vegetation

-73-

Embayment marshes have been reduced greatly by filling and
channeling. Although most wetland community types still exist, they
exist in narrower bands in many places due to filling and reduction
of gently sloping lands subject to periodic inundation within the
tidal range. Emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands have experienced
significant declines statewide. In terms of recent decline, we
estimate that approximately 18 acres of saltmarsh and an unknown
acreage of tidal flats have been destroyed in Portsmouth in the past
12 years (1976 to 1988).

Wildlife

The diversity and abundance of wildlife has decreased in relation to
loss in areal extent and quality of aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
The decreased water quality, submergent vegetation beds and coastal
wetlands have all had a role in reducing the productivity and quality
of the aquatic ecosystem of the Elizabeth River. Physical and
chemical water quality parameters have shifted to ranges that support
a less desirable and commercially viable community. The spawning and
feeding capability of remaining commercially valuable finfish and
shellfish within the Elizabeth River is affected by the loss of
wetlands and increase of sedimentation and pollution within the
system. Reduction of aquatic and wetland vegetation has also
directly decreased the value of the area for waterfowl, other birds
and mammals, including a number of sensitive, rare or endangered
species. Many of the original tidal flats are gone or reduced
greatly in extent. This negatively affects many shorebirds and blue
crabs and some fish.

PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTION

This section examines planned and proposed development actions along
Portsmouth's coastline.

RiverPointe

This 120-acre mixed-use development is currently being developed upon
the old Beasley Farm. This development is to be a corporate office
center and planned residential community. The change from an
agricultural use to an office and residential use will increase the
amount of stormwater runoff.

Scotts Creek

The Scotts Creek development focuses on the northern shoreline. This
37-acre site is zoned as industrial, but recent plans recommend the
establishment of a marine industrial park that would allow uses such
as boat service and repair; engine maintenance and repair; hull
repair; sail lofts; electronic sales and service; and boat yards.
This development would require dredging a deep water channel from the
Elizabeth River to the development area.

-74-

A second, unrelated development involves the development of an
186-slip marina near Moon Engineering at the mouth of Scotts Creek.
This development will nearly triple the number of slips an Scotts
Creek.

Tidewater Yacht Agency Expansion

The Tidewater Yacht Agency has expressed some interest in expanding
their operations in Crawford Bay. Preliminary considerations include
a floating boatel, condominiums and parking deck. This proposed
expansion is primarily designed to attract large boats, but smaller
boats will also be able to take advantage of the facilities.

Downtown Developments

Two sites along the downtown waterfront are vacant. The first site
is located between the ferry landing and the Seawall Restaurant,
while the second site is located between the Lighthouse Museum and
the Naval Shipyard Museum. Existing plans call for these sites to be
developed as a hotel and an office complex.

Old Coast Guard Site

The old Coast Guard site south of the downtown area, is currently
vacant. Redevelopment of this site has been limited to the
construction of a television station office. The Housing Authority
proposes to construct a luxury residential complex on the site.
However, the City's Economic Development Department feels that an
office/commercial mixed-use development would be more appropriate.

City Park Restaurant

The City has issued a Request for Proposals for the development of a
400-seat restaurant and marina and 100-vehicle parking space at City
Park. It is not known if the City has awarded any contracts
regarding this proposal or when this development would be completed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE VIABILITY OF THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

This section briefly addresses necessary considerations for
maintaining the viability of coastal resources while planning and
developing some planned or potential development sites. All coastal
developments should include construction and maintenance plans to
reduce negative impacts to Elizabeth River water quality.

-75-

Planned and Proposed Developments

1. RiverPoint

This property possesses soil characteristics fairly suitable for
construction, but with moderate to severe erosion potential.
Preservation of woods and wetlands is necessary to maintian
suitable sediment control and surface water hydrology.

2. Scotts Creek

Suitability of soils may need to be determined because the area
is unsurveyed. Channel dredging will require permit
certifications under the Clean Water Act and Wetlands Protection
Act. Fringe marsh should be left in place by sensitive design
plans. Design should also consider compatibility with
residential areas to the south.

3. Tidewater Yacht Agency Expansion

A permit to develop over subaqueous land must be secured. Views
from Olde Towne and Crawford Bay could be preserved by
reasonable height limitations.

4. Downtown Developments

Developments would be near the old Seaboard Coastline Building,
but should not produce significant visual impact to this
historical site since the surrounding environment is totally
urbanized.

5. Old Coast Guard Site

No significant coastal resources constraints are associated with
this area except eventual control of effluent and non-point
source impacts to water quality.

6. City Park Restuarant

Soils have not been surveyed, but secondary data sources
indicate that the soils are subject to erosion. Additional
impervious surfaces should be tied into existing retention
basins. Marina development should minimize disturbance to
fringe marsh.

-76-

Other Potential Development Areas

1. Vacant Area Along Paradise Creek

In addition to land availability constraints, alterations to the
banks of Paradise Creek are precluded at most places by fairly
wide saltmarsh areas.

The site is not large enough for heavy industry. Other potential
developments would have no significant negative impact on the
Cradock Historic District.

2. Cox Property

This property possesses soils with moderate bearing strength and
erosion potential. Bearing strength decreases and erosion
potential increases along a 200- to 300-foot strip of land
adjacent the Elizabeth River. Filling or obstruction of
wetlands (Lake Kingman and two smaller tidal creeks) and
surrounding wooded buffers would destroy wetland viability and
site hydrology. Dredging for deep water ports would necessitate
destruction of tidal flats anywhere on the property. Presence
of rare plants or animals would have to be determined as on
other properties. This property contains many archaeological
sites; one site, if disturbed, would require a Phase II survey.

3. Craney Island Fuel Depot

Soil investigations would have to be performed for any
construction requiring high bearing strength. Buffer zones
should be left adjacent Craney Creek wetlands. An
archaeological survey is appropriate for this area. Water
quality goals should consider rehabilitation of nearby oyster
beds.

4. Craney Island Dredge Disposal Area

The dredge fill presents problems of inconclusive bearing
strength and contamination characteristics when the facility is
finally closed. Again, eventual development should be sensitive
to maintaining water quality parameters within limits to allow
use of shellfish resources around the facility within the James
River and eventual use within the Elizabeth River.

-77-

IV. SYNTHESIS OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

This section synthesizes the problems and opportunities that are
present along the Portsmouth coastline and summarizes the Portsmouth
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) issues. It also identifies the
Portsmouth Coastal Zone Land Use (CZLU) Plan goals and policies and
provides an overview of CZM techniques.

SUMMARY OF PORTSMOUTH CZM ISSUES

The issues that currently exist that affect the Portsmouth coastline
can be categorized into three major areas: environmental protection,
economic development, and public access. Within each of these three
major issue areas are sub-issues that, at times, overlap into other
issue areas. Major issue areas and sub-areas are summarized in this
section.

Environmental Protection Issues

1. Water Quality of the Elizabeth River Is Poor

The first sub-issue is the poor water quality of the Elizabeth
River. Both elevated metals and organic toxins have been found
in the river, making it unfit for swimming, fishing and other
water-related recreational activities. Effluent violations and
poor housekeeping of waterfront developments will continue to
degrade Elizabeth River water quality. The poor quality of the
river is compounded by the abundance of uncontrolled non-point
source pollution found in the area. The reauthorization of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act this year places new
emphasis on the control of non-point source pollution.

2. Development Pressure Is Increasing on Wetland Areas

Because of the lack of vacant, developable land within
Portsmouth, the existing coastal wetland areas are receiving
increased development pressure. That is, as less suitable land
for development is available, these valuable wetland areas are
perceived as opportunities for development.

3. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Could Be Improved

Another problem with the increased amount of development in
coastal areas is the increase in stormwater runoff that
contributes to non-point source pollution. Increased erosion
probability also accompanies land disturbance, which in turn
could increase the amount of siltation in the coastal areas.

-78-

4. No Zoning Regulations Protect Privately-Owned Environmentally
Sensitive Areas

While the existing zoning ordinance does have a Waterfront
District (W-1) and a Preservation District (P-1), these
districts do not promote protection of privately-owned
environmentally sensitive areas. The protection of
privately-owned environmentally sensitive areas will help
decrease the development pressure on these areas, help reduce
non-point source pollution in the coastal areas, and help ensure
the long-term productivity and economic well-being of
Portsmouth's natural and man-made resources.

Economic Development Issues

1. Portsmouth has Limited Vacant Land for Economic Development

The City of Portsmouth is both land-locked and water-locked.
The City is becoming increasingly "built-up," leaving limited
amounts of vacant land for future economic development. The
majority of vacant areas also have coastline, and are in some
cases, environmentally sensitive. These characteristics create
a conflict between the need to protect the environmentally
sensitive areas and the need to expand the City's tax base
through economic development. In addition, the recent passage
of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act could have a significant
impact on waterfront developability in Portsmouth.

2. Long-Term Economic I!!pact of the Craney Island Landfill Is
Unknown

The Craney Island Landfill represents an opportunity for the
City of Portsmouth to acquire additional land for economic
development. This opportunity, however, will not be available
for 25 to 50 years. The Craney Island site may not be able to
be developed intensively because of soil stability and other
environmental factors. It is quite possible that the City of
Portsmouth may never be able to acquire the site because of
Government Accounting Office (GAO) procedures regarding excessed
land. The Department of Defense may wish to retain the Craney
Island Landfill once the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are
finished with it.

3. No Zoning Regulations Promote Waterfront Industrial Developments

While the existing zoning regulations do have a waterfront
district (W-1), this district does not promote industrial
developments that require deep-water access. The current W-1
District promotes the development of high-density residential

-79-

and commercial land uses. Several existing vacant parcels that
have waterfront access may be suited for development of
industrial uses that require deep-water access. However,
without a proper zoning district, less intensive industrial use
that does not take advantage of the water frontage could be
developed.

Public Access Issues

1. Public Boat Ramps Are Limited

Portmouth has only two public power boat ramps (four boat lanes)
and one public sailboat ramp for a population of more than
100,000. The sailboat ramp is inadequate for 15 to 25 foot
sailboats due to the shallow draft of the river bank area.
Using the standard of one lane per 12,500 people, the City
should have approximately eight boat lanes to service adequately
its population. However, because of the large number of private
docks and the presence of more "attractive" boat ramp locations
within the Hampton Roads, some debate exists concerning the need
for additional boat ramps.

2. All Public Boat Ramps Are in City Park

All public boat ramps in Portsmouth are in City Park. City Park
is not readily accessible to most Portsmouth residents, forcing
many residents to drive quite a distance to get to the Park.
Proposed locations for future boat ramp locations, in some
cases, would cause disruption of the surrounding neighborhoods
because of the increased traffic and noise.

3. Built-Up Coastline Impedes Public Access Opportunities

Most of Portsmouth's coastline is developed as residential,
industrial or governmental uses. Public access to the water,
both physically and visually, is impeded because of existing
development. Currently, the two largest areas from which the
public can reach the waterfront are City Park and downtown
Portsmouth. With the finite amount of vacant waterfront land
available, appropriate public access points to the water will
become even more scarce and difficult to locate.

-80-

PORTSMOUTH COASTAL ZONE
LAND USE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES

The Portsmouth CZLU Plan goals and policies were formulated to
address the various issues that exist regarding coastal Portsmouth.

Environmental Protection Goals and Policies

Goal: Improve the Water Quality of the Elizabeth River

Policy A: Proposed new source discharges should be evaluated
for consistency with water quality goals and
should not be permitted to result in a net
increase of pollutant loadings such as organics
and metals to the Elizabeth River.

Policy B: Sanitary sewage collection systems and components
should be upgraded to meet Virginia sewerage
Regulations Class I reliability standards.

Policy C: The City of Portsmouth and the U.S. Department of
Defense should continue present efforts to
eliminate infiltration and inflow to the public
sewerage collection systems.

Policy D: The enforcement of existing discharge permit
limits and housekeeping improvements for dry docks
and other ship construction, repair or
refurbishing areas must be continued and enhanced
where appropriate.

Policy E: Performance standards for non-point source
pollution control through the zoning regulations
and subdivision ordinance should be established.
Existing stormwater rules should be upgraded to
include better retention, infiltration and
sediment collection standards.

Goal: Relieve the Development Pressure on Existing Wetland Areas

Policy A: A local wetlands board should be established,
subject to adequate state funding and technical
assistance, to review all site plans and other
development materials.

Policy B: The local wetlands board should rigorously apply
all appropriate Wetlands and Subaqueous Lands
Guidelines that have been developed by the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) and
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS).

Policy C: Alterations of wetland should be evaluated for the
potential to affect both water quality (nutrients,
oxygen, water circulation and sediment) amd
general ecology (food production, nursery and
spawning cover).

Policy D: The local wetlands board should conduct a
continuing public awareness program on wetlands
protection and the environmental consequences of
development in wetland areas.

Goal: Create Development Regulations that Protect
Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Policy A: A coastal area overlay zone should be considered
to identify areas worthy of protection.

Policy B: Zoning performance standards should be considered
for the development of environmentally sensitive
sites.

Policy C: Development codes and regulations should result
in construction methods that are appropriate for
environmentally sensitive lands and development
that will not degrade wetlands or other
environmentally sensitive areas.

Economic Development Goals and Policies

Goal: Create Opportunities to Expand the City's Tax-Base in
Appropriate Coastal Areas.

Policy A: Coastal areas should be developed to enhance the
City's quality of life, not detract from it.

Policy B: Mixed use types of development should be
considered for larger coastal areas, particularly
the Cox property.

Policy C: The Craney Island Dredge Disposal Area should
ultimately be excessed for private development
and conservation.

Goal: Create Zoning Regulations that Promote Marine
Industrial Development at Appropriate Locations.

Policy: A coastal area overlay zone should be
established that will identify areas which
should be reserved for development of
marine-related industries.

-82-

Goal: Improve Public Access to the Coastline

Policy A: Portsmouth residents should be surveyed
concerning their perceptions of the need for
additional public boat ramp access.

Policy B: Public access points and vistas should be
preserved along Portsmouth's coastline.

Policy C: Site plan and other development reviews should
be used to ensure physical and visual public
access to the Elizabeth River and its
tributaries.

Policy 0: Access should be provided, where warranted,
through public acquisition of specific parcels
and the use of easements on privately developed
parcels of land.

Policy E: Publicly and privately owned shoreline should be
kept clean so that Portsmouth's residents can
continue to enjoy this aesthetic resource.

Policy F: Development along tidal creeks should be
carefully sited and where appropriate, clustered
to minimize impacts along the creek. Where
residential development already exists, the City
should negotiate with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and affected property owners for the
maintenance dredging of such creeks to
accommodate small pleasure boat access.

OVERVIEW OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Environmental Management Techniques

Wise management of Portsmouth's coastal resources (and their
associated environmental, economic and social assets) will promote
the present and future health, safety and welfare of its residents
and those in adjacent communities. Appropriately applied
engineering, regulatory and integrated design techniques allow
necessary economic development of coastal areas while addressing
maintenance of coastal zone assets. Techniques for maintaining these
valuable resources center on management of erosion, hydrological
modifications, vegetation and associated fish and wildlife.
Erosion can be managed by implementing careful grading and sediment
collection plans (both during and after construction), preserving
buffer zones that utilize the natural erosion control of vegetation,
and leaving unstable soils undisturbed.

-83-

Hydrology management includes maximization of retention and
infiltration areas for runoff from impervious surfaces; placement of
stormwater runoff outflows to minimize alteration of flow regimes
within natural systems; and optimization of water circulation around
structures developed within open water (e.g. marinas). Non-point
source and industrial process water pollution controls are integrated
with water flow management.

Vegetation management includes maintaining saltmarsh and upland
buffer zones that are wide enough to provide associated values of
erosion control, hydrology moderation (including flood control),
species diversity, and wildlife habitat.

Fish and wildlife management relies on the above vegetation, water
and soil management techniques. Additional considerations include
maintaining sufficient diversity; retaining habitat types that
preserve sufficient areas of quality habitat to support associated
wildlife; controlling physical degradation of marine environments
that results from sediment and pollution; and providing special
requirements for sensitive game and endangered species.

Environmental Zoning Techniques

Three common methods exist for regulating environmental conditions
through zoning: separate shoreline zoning districts, protective
overlay zones and permit processes.

Zone districts, much like the P-1 district in Portsmouth, are
designated to allow a limited number of uses that will not negatively
affect the environment. Other districts, such as the W-1 district in
Portsmouth, should be designed to provide space for water-dependent
or related uses.

Overlay districts require adherrence to additional environmental
regulations in coastal areas in addition to (or instead of) the
standard regulations that apply to the base zone, regardless of the
use. Additional regulations requirements to consider include
setbacks from the shoreline; public access to the shore; views; lot
coverage; beach, tidal 'flat and wetland protection; storm drainage;
waste disposal; shore alteration; and structures in the water. Some
overlay coastal zones may also require a site plan review to document
further the impact of proposals on the coastal environment.
Permitting processes are generally used to regulate very specific
development types such as dredging, cut and fill activity, bulkheads,
lagooning and similar activities that can alter the physical
character of the shoreline. In some cases, permit processes are so
comprehensive that they function similar to overlay districts,
requiring permits for most types of coastal development.

-84-

Portsmouth has two special waterfront zones, P-1 Preservation
District and the W-1 Waterfront district. Most of the existing
regulatory power that positively affects environmental conditions are
the erosion and sedimentation control regulations and the off-site
drainage requirements found in the subdivision regulations.

The communities surrounding Portsmouth have developed various
techniques to deal with coastal protection issues. The City of
Newport News does not have special waterfront districts nor a
specific coastal overlay zone. It regulates waterfront development
through a floodplain district. The City of Norfolk has seven
waterfront zones with distinct land use requirements. The City of
Virginia Beach has two preservation zones for coastal areas: the
preservation district and the special areas designated and controlled
by the wetlands ordinance.

The zoning controls in Portsmouth and in the Hampton Roads area in
general are regulating the construction phases of development and are
protecting floodplain and sensitive environmental areas. But the
controls are not regulating major land use areas in ways that could
have a positive long term impact on coastal zone environmental
quality.

-85-

man

HAMPTON ROADS

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

CRANEY IS

. . . . . . . . . . . .
PROPOSE
WES

............

WEST NORFO@K RD.

< . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

..... ..... .....

@C:
. . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
ItA

... ..... ............. ....
. . . . . . . . . . .

j3\
J0. r
b44

. . . . . . . . . . .
r0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
GREENWO
fN
0 DR
F
Q_Rp, . . . . . . . . . . .
OOD D
. . . . . MA

. . . . . . . . . . . .
od Plain InformationN, 0 at oding, V/C
h. Virginia', US Army o E ineers, . . . . . . . . . .
olk District. February, 1973.

-------------------- -------------

Figure 2-1
FLOODING - POTENTIAL
71 ou
LEGEND

d
Intermediate Regional Tidal Floo
Standard Project Tidal Flood

C 1000 :0CO 4000 90w FEET

DZPATITM.EN7 CF PLANNTNG

C:7Y 07 1CRTS%',0'JT",, V!,1C!N!A

a Z;%@-
@ Flar.
'. "Ke;a?

HAMPTON ROADS

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

CRANEY ISLAND FUEL EPOT

U.S. h
COAST GUARD

PROPOSED
VV STEI
'70",
Li

NEST NORFO@K RD.

0:
<
LU
Q

.. tm

VAL
H P AL

XY
@O/VDOAI BLVD.
HIGH ST.

r,)4

CO
.0

PORTSMOUT
H BLVD. P
601 U.S.
NAVAL @@SIPYARD

GREENWOOD DR.
Qp
OOD
EL AV

VIC-ro
y LV
Source: Virginia marine resour@ a co ission,...
US Fish & Wildlife service Virdbft-tristitute bf-
Marino Science Woolpert bonsfift,@ItLf!el.d ----------- I------------- .........
surveys, Jan. il-16. 1988 - - - - - - - -

Figure 2-2
NATURALRESOURCES
LEGEND
0 0 0 Estuarine Emergent Wetlands"@-

C:@ Nonvegetated Tidal Flats
NORTH
Fringe Marsh (2-20 feet wide)
0 1000 .000 -00 60W FEET
Public and Private Oyster
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA Grounds (currently closed)
L X-non-tidal wetlands not depicted

HAMPTON ROADS

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

CRANEY ISLAND FUEL QE@P@OT

10
41J
5 U.S.
42 4 COAST GUARD
38- 40 3 3ON 02S,,.
*-32
O\A
'\33 13AS 10
PROPOS D S rE. 35 3 4')"o
28-0 12- 0 8
15-\ If 14-- 6
WEST NORFO@K RD. k 5-

1 1000

K
T IC IS T HOSPITAL

us
VA, L
p V SPITAL
R LDE *0 NE
0 ICT HSTOIPUC
0 LO/V 0 DISTRIC"t \
D At BLVD.
OF HIGH ST .
SEABOARD----
oro4 COASTLINE

W
.0
v op

z- Pop
SMOOT BLVD. DRYDOC,, NO. I I

S.
U
NAVAL @Sf@PYARD

F
GREENWOOD DR.
Gil
OOD to) CM"W.
A.
1:; - HISTO I ELM AV.
DISTRICC

v/C 7-0
R y
urce: Virginia historic landmar com Ission
-------------------- ------------- - / -------
--------------- *-,-,

Figure 2-3

CULTURAL RESOURCES
LEGEND
0-i Known Archaeological Sites
NORTH

0 0000 2000 4000 40C10 FEET Historic Sites or Districts
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING

CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA I

t
0, 54,

-0,

1110

Vol

PROPOSEI

WEST NORFO:K RD.

six
K

BLVD.
10 ST.

ST pje 2.6A

C13
op,

PORTSMO
LIT BLVD.

Sr
A
GREENWOOD DR
GR
0

Vic 7,0
J4k Ated

------------------- ------------- -------

Figure 2-4
[PcDT@arm,-@su@h EXISTING LAND USE
0 0 0 LEGEND
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
NORTH Commercial/Office
Industrial
0 1000 2000 4000 tooo rEET U.S. Government
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Parks/Open Space
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA Vacant/ Agricultural

7ol

#
S,
IA.

HAMPTON ROAPS

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

USG

R-i

R-150 CRANEY ISLAND FUEL PEE2T N

10
Rt

USG us'
V,, COAST GUARD

PROPOSE TE
N

ji,
WEST NORFO
K RD.

cr R-100

LU
R-150 R-60-K M-2
POP

_4,4
-150 R-60

R-60
R-75-S
M-2
z
Aor 0
z
LU
R-75 IJISGus.
z NAVAL
-S iz HOSPITAL
R x

R
R-75-K

P - I
R-75-S Oft-75-K-, ST. BLVD. HR
R-75

264

< m-2
R-150
CO
@@<POIRTSMOLIT LVD. IJSG
r
R-6
NAV SHPYAR

R-75
Zro-% I ci
GREENWOOD DR. C-2
M-2
IV 00t)
DD. ELM
A
G M__

V/c me
Ry USG
Sourc*: City of Portsmouth of*4@4@m_wg -map -------
-------------------- ------------- .................... .......

Figure 2-5
EXISTING ZONING
lpc) T a mr,-@ z U LEGEND
0 0 0 C-2 G- I C.--W
C@ Downt:'@n Distrio
651) HRI Matom RmoderlhW
M-1 LlMded kld@WW
UD W2 G@@W kd-t,.9
R-80 M-F Rmiderniat Med Oen5ity
P-75 M-F Rewderdla L@ DwiWty
NORTH R-75-SS-F Redw"
Fl- 00 S-F ReWentaL L@ D-"
R_ 11 50 Suburbw R-Wtid
of@- 7 5- Otr@e/ esedentlak L@ Densty
0 1000 2000 4000 sooo r1ET USGKMOtary Re@ebon
W-1 Wstwfmm Rm c@
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING P_1P-bon
POP Pi.-,j Offt- P@k
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA K Cond6wW Zonffig

V N"
ii, Mr!
'C

ARMY SE STP

s.
HAMPTON ROAD$

CH, @N EYISI @AND LAND FILL

9A. NEY1SLA --FJRLDFP.0.T:.
7@

U.S
COAST G'UARD C%4EY ISLAND
-s)ft D"OT

. . ..... . LA TS POINT STP
W ....
PROPOSED./@'?
..........
es
N

WEST NORFO@:K RD. k

L.Lj

S POINT STP
.40'

OLD BAYVIEW BE

0111,

U.S.
NAVAL
HOSPITAL

BLVD.

PORTSM UT BLVD.

US 44V

?
bA X
GREENWOOD DR.

OOD
ELM AV.

V/C
ORy
st
Source: City of Portsmouth storm at er uti I ity
-m-a TL
.., _ pLik
lb-610-44T C-6niultants
Virginia Water Control BoarcdL,
a
field survey. Jan. 11-15, 19 3 ------------------- 1* ------------- ------- T S
-----------

Figure 2-6
BUILT ENVIRONMENT
LEGEND
A Existing Boat Ramps

Alternative Boat Ramps

Marinas
NORTH Economic Development Opportunity Areas
Public Acess Points

o looo 4000 40@ FEET 0 Major Stormwater Outfalls &
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Box Culverts (24"-58*)
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA Permitted NPDES Outflows

IV, -M,

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

CRANEY ISLAND FUEL IIEPOT
N, I%I

U.S.
n, COAST GUARD

PROPOSED
its

WEST NORFO
@K RD.

2
0
z

ull@.
NVA
N
3PIT

3
6 H/ H ST. BLVD.. 4

o64
jt4

PORTSM LIT BLVD.
r
r
NAVA SHPYAR

r0A
GREEN roo DR.
GR
0
ELM AV.

V/C

cofftmw@.%" *Vro ion. I I - ......
------------------- .............. -------------------------

Figure 2-7
PLANNED & PROPOSED
0 0 El DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS
LEGEND
VuTg@R@a 1 River Pointe
NORTH 2 Scotts Creek
3 Tidewater Yacht Agency
0 10M 2000 4000 4000 FEET 4 Downtown Developments
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 5 Old Coast Guard site
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA 6 City Park Restaurant

CHAPTER 3
COASTAL ZONE LAND USE PLAN

This chapter presents the concept rationale used to develop the
Portsmouth Coastal Zone Land Use Plan and highlights areas of primary
concern for preservation and development. The proposed land use plan
is presented with accompanying utility, circulation and access
considerations. Zoning and physical development strategies are
presented to successfully execute and manage the plan.

SIGNIFICANT COASTAL LAND USE AREAS

Those areas along Portsmouth's coast that significantly relate to the
issues, goals and rationale of this plan are referred to as
significant Coastal Land Use Areas and are basically synonymous to
the Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPQ described in the
VCRMP. These areas can be divided into two major types:
environmentally sensitive areas and prime economic development areas
(see Figure 3-1). In many cases, these two types overlap -- an
area can be both environmentally sensitive and a prime economic
development area. (Such areas are illustrated in Figure 3-1 by
cross-hatching.) In these areas, future development requires
innovative planning to balance the two concerns and provide optimal
use of Portsmouth's coastal zone.

The priority of use recommendations for each GAPC is extracted from
the VCRMP. These recommendations are given in order of consideration
from highest to lowest priority and are advisory in nature.

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

Productive Natural Resource Areas

Included here are resources vital to the productivity and stability
of coastal ecosystems or to the human use and enjoyment of coastal
resources. These resources are predominantly of state and national
significance.

1. Wetlands

The alarming rate of disappearance of the wetlands (especially
saltmarshes and tidal flats) has stimulated federal and state
protective legislation. These wetlands are given a special GAPC
designation based on their diverse values. Wetlands in
Portsmouth are important contributors to two related GAPC

-86-

categories: spawning, nursery and feeding grounds; and wildlife
management. The wetlands also buffer the negative effects of
the two natural hazard area GAPCs (erosion and flooding) in
Portsmouth.

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Preservation;
0 Conservation;
0 Recreation (hunting, fishing, fowling);
0 Agriculture (grazing); and
0 Development.

2. Spawning Nursery and Feeding Grounds

In addition to the wetlands, public oyster grounds are also
included in this category. Restoration of water quality and
vitality in the Elizabeth River is of prime importance to these
areas. (Blue crab and striped bass spawning sanctuaries are not
in the Study Area.)

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Conservation and restoration;
0 Commercial and recreational fishing; and
0 Development (dredging).

3. Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and Barrier Islands

Portsmouth's coastline is entirely composed of protected
estuarine boundaries, so no primary sand dunes or barrier
islands are located within the Study Area.

4. Significant Wildlife Habitat Areas

No managed wildlife areas are located along Portsmouth's
coastline. The most significant habitat areas for wildlife are
in the coastal wetlands (both saltmarsh and tidal flat
wetlands).

5. Significant Public Recreation Areas

Most significant public recreation areas are established
facilities such as City Park and historical sites, but potential
development areas such as Bayview Beach may eventually be
included. No state parks are presently located or planned along
Portsmouth's shoreline.

-87-

Ranked priorities of use are:
0 Recreation such as hunting, fishing, boating, golfing and
0 picnics;
Education;
0 Conservation; and
0 Preservation.

6. Sand and Gravel Resources

The watershed of Hoffler Creek has two fine-sand extraction
operations. Tarmac-Lonestar, a large building-materials
transport operation, is on the northwest corner of Pinners Point
and holds a NPDES permit.

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Conservation and
0 Development.

7. Underwater Historical Sites

No underwater historical sites are documented along Portsmouth's
shoreline, but a number of upland archaeological sites and
historical sites or districts deserve consideration.

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Preservation;
0 Conservation;
0 Recreation; and
0 Development.

Natural Hazard Areas

These categories represent potential hazards to life or property in
developed areas and create design constraints for any new
construction.

1. Highly Erodible Areas

Many areas in the tidewater region have severe problems with
shoreline erosion, but most soils along coastal areas are also
sensitive to disturbance. Two areas in particular, Rivershore
and the Cox Property, have had extensive erosion.

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Preservation;
0 Conservation;
0 Recreation; and
0 Development.

_88-

2. Coastal High-Hazard Areas

This category concerns the vulnerability of coastal developments
to the harmful effects of floods associated with tidal and storm
events. Portsmouth lies in an area acutely susceptible to such
effects. This GAPC, as defined by the 100-year (Intermediate
Regional) flood plain, may be subjected to high velocity waters
including hurricane wave wash and tidal waves.

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Preservation;
0 Conservation;
0 Recreation; and
0 Development.

PRIME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS

This category is synonymous with Waterfront Development GAPCs.
Waterfront development areas such as ports and community waterfronts
are included in the VCRMP due to their economic and social values.
These areas need to be managed because so few of them are available
and these few receive heavy development pressure. This is also true
of environmentally sensitive areas.

The VCRMP recognizes two classes of uses for waterfront development
GAPCs. The first class, which is given top priority, is
water-access dependent activities. The second class of uses is
activities that are significantly enhanced by a waterfront location
and are complementary to other existing and/or planned activities in
a given waterfront area.

The Portsmouth shoreline has eight significant waterfront areas with
a potential for economic development/redevelopment. These areas are
shown in Figure 3-1.

Cox Property

This 600-acre site along the Main Branch of the Elizabeth River
represents Portsmouth's last significant waterfront development
opportunity area. This site is constrained by a tidal creek that
penetrates the site and by substantial tidal flats all along the
site's shoreline. However, with careful planning and environmentally
sensitive design, this site could be developed as a significant
deep-water port with mixed-use, light industrial and commercial uses
along its upland portion.

_89-

Scotts Creek

Located at the zero-mile marker of the Intercoastal Waterway, Scotts
Creek's north shore represents an opportunity to develop a
marine-oriented mixed-use development. This market is relatively
untapped in the tidewater area. Such a development would be
compatible with the industrial uses of Pinners Point as well as with
the residential uses on the south shore of Scotts Creek.

Craney Island Landfill

This area represents, at best, a very long-term economic development
area. However, portions of the area could be developed as another
site for large-scale marine industrial uses if the City can acquire
the land and redevelop it.

West Norfolk Bridge Site

This site, currently underdeveloped, offers prime waterfront access
to the Western Branch of the Elizabeth River. After the Western
Freeway is completed, this site will be more visible, more accessible
and attractive for redevelopment.

RiverPointe

This site is currently being developed as a large mixed-used office
and residential community. Previously an agricultural use, this new
development will significantly increase the intensity of land use.
The proposed uses are not water-dependent, but the proximity of water
to the site makes RiverPointe attractive.

Downtown Portsmouth

Downtown Portsmouth has two sites proposed to be redeveloped as
office and commercial uses. These sites are not dependent upon the
water for their economic viability, but proximity to the downtown
business district and the water will make these sites attractive.

Old Coast Guard Site

The old Coast Guard site, south of downtown Portsmouth, offers a
large redevelopment site with deep-water access. Future development
plans do not specifically include water-dependent uses; the plans
call for mixed office, commercial, residential and light industrial
uses.

_90-

Paradise Creek

The Paradise Creek site offers a marginal opportunity for industrial
development because the buildable area may not be large enough to
attract larger developments. The physical unattractiveness of the
site limits its development potential for other uses.

Ranked priorities of use are:

0 Activities dependent on water access and
0 Activities significantly enhanced by waterfront location and
complementary to existing or planned activities in the same
waterfront area.

-91-

COASTAL LAND USE PLAN

The recommended Coastal Land Use Plan is illustrated in Figure 3-2.
This Plan allocates land uses along the Portsmouth shoreline, and it
pays particular attention to areas currently undeveloped and to
agricultural uses that will probably undergo a land use change in the
next few years. The Plan identifies all environmentally sensitive
lands in these areas and recommends compatable future land uses
adjacent these sensitive areas.

RESIDENTIAL

Residential development will continue to be the dominant land use
throughout coastal Portsmouth. New residential development is
expected in the upper reaches of Carney Creek and Hoffler Creek. In
these areas, new developments should be approximately 100 feet from
the wetland areas, and care should be taken to design
pre-construction and post-construction runoff control to avoid
siltation in the tidal areas. Specific actions to mitigate siltation
are described in the Environmental Management Strategies section of
this report on page 107.

New residential development could also occur in mixed-use
developments at RiverPointe and the old Coast Guard site. Care
should be taken at RiverPointe to avoid wetlands, provide vegetated
buffers around wetlands and control runoff to avoid siltation and
non-point source pollution.

COMMERCIAL/OFFICE

Commercial and office development will be restricted to downtown
Portsmouth and to mixed-use developments along the shoreline.
Commercial or office development is likely in two redevelopment sites
in downtown Portsmouth. Adjacent downtown (on the old Coast Guard
site) commercial/office uses could make up a large segment of this
mixed-use development.

Other mixed-use developments at RiverPointe and on the north shore of
Scotts Creek will also provide additional commercial/office uses
along the shoreline. The Scotts Creek development will mix various
commercial and smaller industrial, marine-related uses. RiverPointe
will mix office and residential uses.

A final area of possible commercial/office development is on the west
edge of the Cox Property. Although water-dependent industrial uses
are planned for part of the shoreline, the west portion could be used
for commercial/office development. Access by way of the proposed
Western Freeway will make this an attractive location.

-92-

INDUSTRIAL

Industrial development represents a significant future land use of
coastal Portsmouth. Existing industrial areas around the Naval
Shipyard an Pinners Point and in the West Norfolk Section will be
maintained. The largest new industrial area may be the Cox Property.

Although the Cox Property offers an excellent site for a
water-related industry, it is constrained by Lake Kingman, an unnamed
tidal creek, archaeological sites and tidal flats. Wetland areas
should be protected by a buffer of 100 to 200 feet around them. The
archaelogical sites can be surveyed and excavated, if appropriate,
before construction. The remaining environmental constraint -- the
tidal flats -- is not so easily resolved. Deep-water access is
impossible at this site without removing some tidal flats by
dredging. This Plan proposes a compromise by designating one section
of the tidal flats for dredging a deep-water channel. Development to
other areas would be restricted to leave the remaining tidal flats
unaffected. Regrading and revegetation of the eroded bluffs on this
property would be appropriate for erosion control, aesthetics and
site stability when the area is developed.

Future industrial development is also likely west of the West Norfolk
Bridge and along the north shore of Scotts Creek. These areas are
likely to be mixed-use developments that combine commercial/office
and industrial uses.

A final, long-term industrial development is recommended for the
eastern third of the Craney Island Landfill. This area is not likely
to be available for development for at least 25 years. Future
ownership of this site is unknown at this time.

GOVERNMENT

The U.S. Government is not expected to expand its land uses in the
near future, but it may intensify its existing uses. Increased use
could have such environmental impacts as increased stormwater runoff,
which would increase non-point source pollution, siltation and
erosion. In the long term, governmental uses may be reduced with the
redevelopment of the Craney Island Landfill. However, another
federal agency is likely to acquire this property after the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers relinquishes it.

-93-

RECREATION

Recreational uses along the Portsmouth shoreline include both public
and private parks, public boat ramps and public boat slips. The
Coastal Land Use Plan recommends the maintenance of City Park as the
City's main water-related recreation area. A new park at Bayview
Beach would provide needed public access to the water with unique
views of the nearby industrial waterfronts. Another public access
waterfront park is proposed at the Cox Property tidal creek. This
recreational opportunity is described more fully in the next section.

Although the need for additional public boat ramps has not been
definitely determined, the Portsmouth area has several possible
locations for ramps. The West Norfolk Bridge site, Scotts Creek and
Paradise Creek offer short-term sites, and Craney Island offers a
long-term site for public boat ramps and recreational facilities.

The Elizabeth Manor Country Club and several private marina and boat
slips provide additional recreational opportunities for Portsmouth's
citizens.

OPEN SPACE

Open space areas are recommended for all undeveloped areas within 200
feet of a wetland area. This is usually the maximum buffer needed to
preserve the wetland area and mitigate any adverse impacts from new
development. Areas in which this buffer should be established
include all of Hoffler Creek and Craney Creek, the undeveloped areas
of Carney Creek and Lake Kingman and the Cox Property tidal creek.

The Cox Property tidal creek provides public access to two distinctly
different "working waterfronts." Through the use of elevated
walkways and landings, people will be able to see the natural
Oworking waterfront," a complex ecosystem. With strategically
located signage that explains what is observed, this area could
become an educational tool for enlightening visitors to the crucial
functions wetland areas perform. The walkways could be extended out
into the Elizabeth River to provide visitors with a view of the
industrial "working waterfront" that surrounds the area. This unique
grouping of the two contrasting yet complementary "working
waterfronts" would also attract tourists, which would help the City's
tax base.

The City does not own this property. A possible solution would be
for the property owner to donate this section of the property to a
non-profit land trust such as an entity established through the Trust
for Public Lands. the trust could develop and manage the property in
conjunction with other interests. The property owner would receive
tax benefits and favorable public relations in return.

-94-

ZONING AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

An important element of the CZLU Plan and its implementation is the
incorporation of the recommendations and environmental controls into
Portsmouth's codified ordinances. The land use control techniques
discussed below are designed to make land use regulations in
Portsmouth more responsive to environmental issues and shoreline
protection concerns. Any land development potentially creates point
source and non-point source pollution, sedimentation and erosion and
degradation of the shoreline environment. These phenomena can be
controlled to varying degrees by appropriate development controls.

Development controls that regulate new development, particularly
projects near the shoreline, can have a significant impact on coastal
zone quality. The problems of coastal zone quality -- point and
non-point source pollution, erosion and sedimentation -- can be
mitigated by regulating the way development occurs. The Shoreline
overlay zone and the W-2 Working Waterfront District are suggested
methods to better control new development on limited vacant parcels
in the community. Further mitigation can be achieved through review
of proposed projects by the Wetlands Board.

Portsmouth is a mature community with a largely developed coastal
zone. Methods for regulating the redevelopment and continued use of
the residential and commercial parts of the coastal zone are a vital
part of the Coastal Zone Management Plan. The techniques discussed
again in the shoreline overlay zone and in the modifications to the
existing zoning code are important elements to change the impact of
existing development on environmental quality.

Because much of the coastline is already developed, the impact of
these modifications will be gradual. In the long-term, however,
improving areas already developed can have a more significant
positive impact on coastal quality than the regulation of limited
vacant property. These redevelopment recommendations will control
the intensification of land use in desirable waterfront developments
-- such as adding paved tennis courts to residential properties or
paving a landscaped area to provide more parking for a commercial
property. Local government should consider the following techniques
for regulating development that may cause environmental concerns.

Zoning Techniques

A Shoreline Overlay Zone is an option for all coastal frontage in
Portsmouth except for public property and special coastal zones. The
Shoreline Overlay Zone would be designated for all shore areas,
regardless of the base district zoning. The Shoreline Overlay Zone
should not change the original zoning designation on property, but it

-95-

could apply additional requirements to permitted development in a
base zoning district. The designation would apply to all land with a
shoreline boundary and would extend 200 feet inside the shoreline,
measured from the mean high water mark. The following criteria could
apply to all development or land use in a Shoreline Overlay Zone.

0 Structures (excluding private docks) should maintain a setback
of 100 feet from the mean high water mark.

0 Natural upland vegetation buffer areas in setback areas should
be maintained as much as possible within the Shoreline Overlay
Zone and should be maintained in any case where construction
requires removal of vegetation. As soon as is possible, the
area should be revegetated within a construction easement to at
least 75 percent of the original vegetated cover. Vegetation
loss should be compensated for with water and sediment control
structures.

0 Agricultural uses, including keeping animals, should be
prohibited within a Shoreline Ovi!rlay Zone.

0 The storage of hazardous materials should be prohibited within
a Shoreline Overlay Zone.

0
Public access to the shoreline should be provided from all
existing public rights-of-way ex-:ending into a Shoreline Overlay
Zone. Where public rights-of-wa,f are not present, public
easements should be required at -egular intervals of
.approximately 1,000 feet.

The above criteria are intended to protect the Portsmouth shoreline
from the potentially negative impacts of development by mitigating
shoreline erosion and sedimentation problems, controlling potential
pollution and allowing reasonable pub'lic use of the shoreline.

These concepts are similar to the speoial regulations that protect
Portsmouth's historic resources and could be positioned in the zoning
code with these existing regulations.

An alternative to creating a Shorelint! Overlay Zone would be to
provide additional regulations in each zoning district that would
apply to development or redevelopment in coastal areas of that zone.
The effect of this type of regulation would be similar to the
shoreline overlay, but would require nore extensive modification to
the zoning code.

Both the existing and the proposed zoning codes provide for two
waterfront zones, the P-1 Preservation District and the W-1
Waterfront District. The P-1 District is intended to preserve open
space and environmentally sensitive areas of Portsmouth. Currently,
the only P-1 designation is the City Park area. This designation

-96-

should be applied more aggressively in other environmentally
sensitive areas, particularly in remaining saltmarsh and tidal flat
areas such as Hoffler Creek and the Cox Property Flats. The W-1
Waterfront District provides for mixed-use developments that use the
waterfront for commercial, residential and recreational uses. This
district may be termed the W-1 Mixed-Use Waterfront District, as to
distinguish it from the proposed new W-2 Working Waterfront District.

A new W-2 Working Waterfront District is proposed to provide for
shoreline areas to be used by water-dependent commercial and
industrial uses. Permitted uses would be uses dependent on
deep-water port facilities and/or direct access to the waterfront.
The following uses, referenced with Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes, as in the proposed zoning code,
illustrate appropriate types of permitted uses in this district:
Marine Supply Dealer (5551), Ferry Terminal (4230), Tour Boat Landing
(4459), Ship and Boat Building and Repair (3730). These more intense
water-related uses, such as industrial deep-water ports, are not
entirely compatible with the mixed-use types of developments
appropriate in the W-1 District and should be encouraged but
distinguished from uses in the W-1 District.

The dimension requirements in the W-2 District should allow
flexibility, with no front yard or side yard setbacks or buffering
requirements at the rear lot lines adjacent residential and
commercial uses. Buffer zones related to coastal environmental
protection would still be required.

Further regulating uses in the W-2 District would be appropriate,
based on performance criteria that consider the potential risks of
industrial pollution and mitigating industrial land use problems in a
complex urban system such as Portsmouth. Suggested performance
standards are included in the Appendices.

Land use in the W-2 District should be further guided by the Wetlands
Board. Permits that ensure compliance with relevant regulations will
further safeguard coastal areas used for commercial and industrial
purposes.

The W-1-and the proposed W-2 districts are intended to provide space
along the shoreline for water-related and water-enhanced uses in a
way that protects the shoreline.

The Shoreline Overlay Zone should not be imposed on the P-1, W-1 or
W-2 Districts. These districts would have shoreline protective
measures in their district regulations and would be subject to
permitting of shoreline alterations through the Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Portsmouth
Wetlands Board.

-97-

In addition to the changes recommended above, several other
modifications to the zoning code would have a positive impact on the
coastal environment that over the long term. Many of these issues
have been addressed in the proposed zoning code the City is now
reviewing. These issues include:

0 Agricultural practices and the keeping of livestock have a
potentially negative impact on the coastal environment, due
primarily to non-point source pollution carried in storm runoff,
erosion and sedimentation. Agricultural uses, including the
keeping of animals, should be prohibited in residential
districts, with the exception of the R-150 District.

The amount of pavement and impervious surfaces in the City
increases the volume of non-point source pollution in stormwater
runoff. Sedimentation and erosion accompany altered runoff
conditions. The proposed lot coverage maximums in the zoning
ordinance under review should improve this situation. It is
further recommended that lot coverage be defined as any coverage
of the ground by an impervious surface, including sidewalks,
driveways, parking areas and swimming pools.

Industrial uses in the M-1 and M-2 Districts are very broadly
defined, making the tracking of point source pollution
difficult. A more detailed outline of industrial uses in the
proposed ordinance and the overlay zone would make it easier for
the City to regulate potential pollution sources.

Tax Incentive Controls

A number of other strategies for protecting and preserving the
coastal zone are related to voluntary agreements under the incentive
of property tax relief. These benefits can be realized through
public or private donations and acquisition, conservation easements
or deed restrictions, land management under a land trust, or other
real estate tax incentives as allowed by law. (See Appendix C:
Coastal Zone Management Funding Source, Non-profit Organizations, for
more information).

The Portsmouth Wetland Board

The Portsmouth Wetland Board should consist of individuals
knowledgeable in planning, biology, hydrology, water quality, soil
science, engineering, economics and the permit criteria for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.
The Commonwealth of Virginia should be solicited to provide adequate
training, financial assistance and technical assistance as needed. A
comprehensive procedural and technical manual produced at the state
level would also be helpful.

-98-

Some particular focuses of the Board should include:

Requiring all construction plans to be reviewed for wetland
(tidal or non-tidal) involvement, redesigned if necessary and
properly permitted before any construction can begin.

0 Considering cumulative losses of small permitted fills against
the total local, regional and state inventory of various wetland
types. Piecemeal permission of wetland fills creates
significant losses to the ecosystem over time. Granting such
permission has recently produced large losses of saltmarsh and
tidal flats statewide.

Taking a strong stand on wetland preservation in preference to
allowing destruction. The underlying rationale to this strategy
is that the public and private benefits of the wetlands often
outweigh any benefits associated with their loss; construction
and maintenance costs are higher on wetlands; innovative
construction design alternatives to wetland encroachment often
exist; and successful wetland restorations are expensive and
seldom match the quality and function of the original wetland.

Establishing a strong rapport with City and community leaders
and the public at large. This can be accomplished through
education, complete public access to review permits and a
coordinated public relations plan. Such support is vital to the
effectiveness of Board actions.

0 Initiating a continuing program of public awareness of wetlands
and coastal environments, their importance to the local economy
and regional ecosystem and the impact that incompatible
construction methods can have on wetland and coastal vitality.

The Portsmouth Wetland Board should assume primary responsibility for
wetland protection issues concerning land use decisions throughout
the coastal zone, including zoning districts P-1, W-1 and W-2. The
Board should be granted the powers necessary to execute that
responsibility. This Board could issue wetlands permits for
development and other activities requiring permits in the P-1, W-1
and proposed W-2 districts. This process of limited zoning review
would be similar to the process used by the Commission of
architectural review.

_99-

INFRASTRUCTURE AND CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS

This section outlines what infrastructure (storm and sanitary sewers,
water supply and electricity) and circulation (streets and roads)
improvements will be needed to achieve the recommended Coastal Land
Use Plan.

STORM SEWERS

Storm sewer systems will be needed in any new development along the
shoreline. The increased stormwater runoff that occurs when
impervious surfaces such as asphalt and concrete replace natural open
areas needs to be collected and dispersed into the natural drainage
system at a flow-level comparable to predevelopment conditions. This
may require the use of retention or detention basins near large
developments that have large amounts of paved surfaces.

SANITARY SEWERS

As with storm sewers, all new developments along the shoreline will
need to be serviced by sanitary sewers. Most of the currently
undeveloped land can be easily tied into the existing sanitary sewer
system.

Development of an industrial at the Cox Property that produced large
amounts of effluent might require larger sanitary sewer lines to
accommodate the increased flow.

WATER SUPPLY

The water supply is crucial for residential uses such as drinking and
bathing and for industrial uses during the manufacturing process, and
it is also is needed for fire protection. Water lines to new
developments must be large enough to ensure adequate water pressure
to meet all these needs.

If water is to be used by a new industrial development as a coolant
in a manufacturing process, care must be taken not to discharge any
heated water that could cause thermal pollution.

ELECTRICITY

The electric system could be extended into all of the undeveloped
shoreline areas. At those sites that are adjacent environmentally
sensitive areas, electrical lines should be put underground (but not
within wetlands) to preserve the natural aesthetics of the area.

_100-

Any large scale development that needs large amounts of electricity
to operate may require an upgrade of the electrical system to meet
the demand. Another option at the Cox Property would be to purchase
either steam or electricity from the COGENTRIX plant.

ROADWAYS

Many of the undeveloped areas are currently inaccessible or have poor
access to the major thoroughfares of the City. Access roadways will
need to be constructed before these areas can be developed. All
roadways in coastal areas should be planned and designed to avoid
environmental degradation through increased stormwater runoff and
improper culvertizing and filling. Development of the Cox Property
will require an entrance road to provide access to the Cox Property
shoreline and an access road (running parallel with the Western
Freeway) from one of the proposed interchanges to the entrance road.

Access to the north shore of Scotts Creek will be limited until an
interchange from the Martin Luther King Expressway is constructed.
It is uncertain at this time how the interchange will be designed or
how the Scotts Creek site will be tied into the existing limited
access network.

Access to other undeveloped areas can be easily improved by
construction of "feeder" streets into these areas. If a proposed
roadway must cross over a wetland area, a bridge over the wetland
area must be constructed. The use of a culvert and fill, while less
expensive than a bridge, would essentially destroy the wetland and
its attendant functions.

IV. COASTAL ACCESS STRATEGY

The Coastal Access Strategy is designed to make the Portsmouth
shoreline more accessible to the public. Currently, only one public
location has boat launching facilities, and only a few public places
provide a view of the water. The Coastal Access Strategy recommends
ways to improve public access to the waterfront. These
recommendations are illustrated in Figure 3-3 and outlined below.

PUBLIC BOAT RAMPS

Portsmouth's only public boat ramps are in City Park. These ramps
are centrally located on the Western Branch, but they are far from
fishing and water skiing areas. Public boat ramps closer to the Main
Branch of the Elizabeth River or on the Southern Branch would place
boaters nearer their ultimate destination.

Before selecting sites for additional public boat ramps, the City
should determine whether additional public boat ramps are needed.
Many citizens have private docks adjacent their property; other
citizens have access to an increasing number of private boat slips;
and owners of trailered boats do not need ramps because they can
easily transport their boats to other areas to be launched.

Five sites throughout Portsmouth were analyzed as potential sites for
additional boat ramps.

1. City Park

City Park is centrally located, the property is owned by the
City, and access to the site would not cause any additional
disruption of adjacent neighborhoods. This location, however,
is not near many fishing and water skiing areas.

2. West of West Norfolk Bridge

This site would provide boat ramps near the growing population
of the Churchland, Hatton Point and Merrifields neighborhoods.
Access to this location would be excellent due to its proximity
to the proposed Western Freeway, and the additional traffic
would not further disrupt any adjacent neighborhoods. This site
would allow boaters to launch near the mouth of the Western
Branch with easy access to the rest of Hampton Roads. This
site, however, is currently owned by multiple property owners,
some of whom have specific plans for developing their
properties. Using this site might deter future commercial or
industrial development at this site.

-102-

3. Scotts Creek

Constructing new boat ramps on City-owned land on the western
shore of Scotts Creek would give boaters access to the northern
section of the Southern Branch. Access to this site is
currently poor, but it should improve after improvements are
made to the Martin Luther King Expressway and approved dredging
of the Creek is completed. However, some people mayuse local
streets to gain access to the site and disrupt adjacent
neighborhoods. This site may not have enough landside area to
accommodate support facilities such as parking and restrooms.
Increased boat traffic on this waterway could also cause
congestion if the north side of the Creek is developed as
planned.

4. Paradise Creek

This privately owned area is in the extreme southeast corner of
the City, but it has direct access from Interstate 264 by
Victory Boulevard, and it would serve the citizens of the
southeastern neighborhoods. This site would allow boaters to
launch their boats near the Southern Branch, south of the heavy
ship traffic of the Naval Shipyard, but boaters would have to
navigate through the heavy ship area to get to Hampton Roads.
This site would also allow water skiers to launch their boats
closer to the areas where they prefer to ski. Some dredging
and wetland removal would be needed to deepen the channel for
launching activity.

5. Craney Island

This site, in the extreme northern section of Portsmouth, would
allow boaters to launch directly out into Hampton Roads. This
site, however, is a long-shot at best because there is no public
access to this area and any development plans are long-term.

The existing sail boat ramp at City Park is inadequate for the
launching of sailboats larger than 15 feet because of the shallow
draft adjacent the ramp. This facility would need to have somewhat
deep water to facilitate the insertion of the boats' center board
prior to sailing. Potential sites include the existing City Park
site (with channel improvements), the West Norfolk Bridge site and,
in the long term, Craney Island.

PUBLIC VIEWS AND VISTAS

Currently, the public has access to two improved areas with
waterfront views. The first area is City Park, and the second is the
downtown seawall. One unimproved area, Bayview Beach, also allows
the public some waterfront views. Figure 3-3 shows other areas
recommended for development as public access parks. The recommended
areas are described below.

-103-

1. Cox Property Tidal Creek

As described earlier, the Cox Property Tidal Creek offers an
excellent opportunity for the development of a public park.
Walkways could provide elevated views of two "working
waterfronts," with informational signage for public education.
This site would also provide views of the Portsmouth Marine
Terminal, Virginia Chemical Complex, Coast Guard Base, and the
Norfolk Marine Terminal.

2. West Norfolk Bridge Site

This location provides a 180-degree view of the Western Branch.
If a public boat launching facility is constructed here, a
public-access park should be developed, with picnic tables,
grills and benches.

3. Bayview Beach

This location provides views of the Portsmouth Marine Terminal,
Virginia Chemical Complex and the Main Branch to Hampton Roads.
With benches, tables and grills, this site could become an
excellent public-access park. This site, however, may be
severely constrained by the proximity of the Western Freeway
connection to the Martin Luther King Expressway.

4. High Street Bridge Site

A small, publicly-owned parcel south of the western end of the
High Street Bridge could be used to provide public access to the
Western Branch. Ideally, development would be limited to a few
benches to avoid disturbing the residential character of the
adjacent neighborhood. This site could provide a resting point
for people out for evening strolls and would be a quiet place
from which to watch the water.

5. Scotts Creek

This site would offer views up Scotts Creek and would most
likely be used by neighborhood residents. If a public boat
launching facility is constructed here, a public-access park
should also be developed.

6. Leckie Street Bridge

This bridge, currently closed to vehicular traffic, offers
nearly 360-degree views of this branch of Scotts Creek. If the
bridge remains closed, this location should continue to be a
public-access point for viewing the water and participating in
water-related activities. A lack of parking limits this site to
neighborhood use.

-104-

7. Paradise Creek Site

Because of the industrial nature of this area, this site would
provide unique views but would not be a likely picnic spot. If
a public boat launching facility is constructed here, a
public-access park should also be constructed.

8. Downtown Portsmouth

The existing public access by the seawall could be enhanced by
informational signage. People looking across the river towards
Norfolk would enjoy knowing more about the view and the history
of the area. The seawall could become part of a walking tour
stretching from the Naval Hospital, through Olde Towne, along
the seawall and ending at the Naval Shipyard.

9. Neighborhood Access Points

City streets that dead-end at the waterfront could be developed
as neighborhood access points. These areas could be cleared,
and park benches could be installed to allow residents to sit
and enjoy the proximity to the water. Clearing, cleaning and
scheduled maintenance could be done by neighborhood and
community service groups.

10. Craney Island

This site would offer excellent views of the Hampton Roads.
However, as previously mentioned, this site is a long-term
alternative.

PRIVATE BOAT DOCKS

Many residents have access to the water by private boat docks. Other
homeowners have "mud-front" property because their waterfront
property has silted in. These property owners would like their
access to the water returned, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
unlikely to permit this type of dredging. Even if the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers permitted dredging, the permissable channel width,
if constructed with stable slopes, would have a draft of only four
feet. The channel might quickly fill back in with a combination of
upland erosion and tidal drift.

-105-

V. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The Coastal Land Use Plan segment of this chapter discussed zoning,
tax incentive and administrative techniques for environmental
management of coastal zones. This section focuses on construction
and engineering considerations that can be implemented to optimize
both the use and conservation of various coastal resources. Many of
the strategies directly related to the wetlands have been drawn from
the Virginia Marine Resources Commission criteria for evaluating
alterations of wetlands.

Although the recommended strategies are grouped into resource
categories parallel to those used in Chapter 2, most of the
strategies provide benefits for more than one element of coastal
resources. For example, control of aesthetic pollutants such as
solid wastes, soap scum, oil and grease increases boating enjoyment.
Control of toxic pollutants creates a greater interest in fishing.
Sediment control and habitat management encourages shell and fin fish
production. The implementation of interrelated strategies will,
thus, create a total benefit (a revitalized recreational fishery)
greater than the sum of the benefits of each strategy.

GENERAL LAND USE

1. Design all site plans around streamside vegetation, wetlands and
shallow river areas to minimize filling, dredging or drainage
alterations. Such designs can have the secondary benefits of
providing green space, increased property values and tax
exemption incentives.

2. Design all future utility lines and roadways to optimize
community service and environmental fit. Avoid designing roads
and distribution lines that cross over waterways or wetlands.

3. Limit shoreline alteration to water-dependent uses with proven
economic justification and minimal adverse impact on the
environment.

4. Avoid high-density development in or adjacent flood plains and
wetlands. The existing downtown shoreline is an exception.

5. Design all permitted channels, earthwork structures and
buildings in the coastal zone to withstand the stresses of the
maritime environment. This will minimize the economic and
environmental costs of frequent maintenance dredging and
structural repair.

6. Dispose of dredge material in constructive ways by using it to
restore fringe marsh, create buffer islands, provide fill.for
upland construction, fill mine pits or caverns, and regrade
eroded bluffs.

-106-

7. Design stormwater management systems to control runoff quantity,
velocity and direction to protect the public health, property
and environment from adverse impact.

HYDROLOGY

The first six strategies address upland drainage control and dredge
spoil disposal.

1. Design coastal zone construction plans to minimize the creation
of impermeable surfaces: limit pavements, roadways and buildings
to essential amounts and use permeable asphalt and pervious
pavers where practical.

2. Incorporate appropriate transport, detention and infiltration
structures into a coordinated stormwater management system to
minimize outflow and surcharging (backwater).

3. Reduce the velocity and volume of runoff by directing runoff
from impermeable surfaces to grassed swales, terraces and buffer
strips. This practice will reduce high-volume fluctuations in
subsequent storm sewers and retention/detention structures,
improve runoff water quality and decrease erosion. A study in
the Lynnhaven Bay area documented that runoff water from
residential areas served by grassed swales had 30 to 90 percent
less nutrients, sediment and biochemical oxygen demand than
runoff from areas served by conventional curb and gutter
systems.

4. Design runoff discharge management systems to maintain
predevelopment discharge volume. The following three structures
can improve stormwater management conditions by greatly reducing
water volumes transported off-site and by removing sediment and
pollutants from that water.

0 Infiltration Trenches (Figure 3-4) -- These are best suited
to areas with permeable soils (most Portsmouth areas) but
are limited by high water tables (some Portsmouth areas).
Infiltration trenches are best suited to moderate density
development in areas with limited space for detention
structures. Oyster shell is the preferred backfill because
it allows 100 percent more water flow-through than
aggregate. Some designs may eliminate the holding box (to
reduce cost) and use complete backfill with oyster shell.
These trenches require larger holding dimensions. Depth,
width and length of trenches may be modified to fit site
designs.

-107-

0 Dry Wells -- These are modified infiltration trench designs
that can be installed at storm-drain catch basins in the
stormwater transport network.

0 Wet Retention Ponds (Figure 3-5) -- These structures are
suitable to all soil and water conditions in Portsmouth and
to all land use densities. Wet retention ponds are most
appropriate in high impervious surface/high volume runoff
situations. They are more expensive than infiltration
devices. Wet retention ponds provide an open-water amenity
to site developments, but care must be taken to site them
for hydrologic rather than aesthetic reasons to avoid
potential ineffectiveness and flooding problems. Sediment
trapping efficiencies usually range from 50 to 75 percent
but can be greater than 90 percent in vegetated ponds.
Because of the high permeability of Portsmouth soils,
retention basins should be impounded where possible or
lined with clay in areas of low water tables.

5. Locate disposal areas for dredge material from bucket or
dragline spoil at least 15 feet upland of marsh areas. The
disposal areas should be confined by vegetated earthen berms
with stable, 30 to 40 degree slopes. The top elevation of the
berm should be three to four feet above spring tide height, with
internal release pipes near the top.

6. Locate disposal areas for dredge material from hydraulic spoil
100 feet upland of the shore. Depth and distance between dredge
slurry inflow and discharge pipes should be sufficient to ensure
outfall water standards.

The following five hydrology strategies are concerned with managing
natural drainage features of the Elizabeth River and connecting tidal
creeks.

1. Avoid any change in the coastal water basin that reduces water
circulation within or water flow into the estuarine system.

2. Keep natural upland drainage ways and tidal creeks unobstructed
where possible. Maintaining drainage and tidal flushing
generally decreases flood potential, erosion, pollution
concentration and sediment plugging of stormwater outflows while
preserving the productivity of aquatic habitats.

3. Design culvert transport for at least a 10-year storm flow from
the connecting watershed for crossings or coverage of small
upland drainages. Avoid culvert and fill construction when road
crossings of larger tidal drainages are essential. Instead, use
driven-pile or prestressed concrete deck unit bridges. These
practices will minimize or eliminate fill in drainages and
wetlands while maintaining site hydrology and soil stability.

-108-

4. Design marinas to maximize water circulation. Strategies
include: locating marinas in areas with good preconstruction
flush, maintaining shallow water areas near shore to accelerate
tidal velocities in these confined areas, using floating docks
and off-shore mooring where possible and avoiding fill in open
water areas. Specific criteria recommended by the MRC to
achieve these objectives include: siting marinas near the mouth
of slow moving tidal creeks rather than the headwaters,
structures should encroach no more than one-third the distance
across the waterway, locate slips for deep draft vessels in the
naturally deeper waters of the marina and designing any
necessary breakwaters to minimize water circulation impedence by
using floating tire or other non-permanent designs.

5. Avoid water stagnation and sedimentation problems when a channel
cut into marsh or upland is permitted: make channels gradually
shallower towards their inland extent, grade the slopes to 30 or
40 percent, revegetate the slopes and avoid narrow or angular
designs.

WATER QUALITY

1. Upgrade Pinner's Point sewage treatment plant to tertiary
treatment with bacteriological nutrient digestion under the
control of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District.

2. Site marinas as far as possible from productive oyster or clam
grounds because a bacterial contamination hazard accompanies the
maintenance of on-board sanitary sewer facilities.

3. Apply chemical treatment processes to industrial wastewater
effluents before discharge to remove specific heavy metals and
organic toxins.

4. Initiate a comprehensive public education program to reduce
loads of fertilizers, toxic household chemicals, and automotive
fluids into storm and sewer systems serving residential areas.
Reduction of overfertilization has reached 50 percent under such
programs.

5. Survey maintenance of existing residential and marina septic
systems and correct any seepage problems.

_109-

6. Require reasonable control of fertilizer us e on remaining
agricultural lands: spring application of fertilizers, no-till
or contour plowing, and strip or terrace cropping. These
practices reduce chemical outflow into the marsh-marine system
and improve hydrology and erosion conditions. Apply vegetation
buffer strips to agricultural areas as well as on erodible
bluffs such as Cox Property, grassed swales and retention ponds
near the coast. Apply an operations setback zone of 200 feet to
all agricultural operations.

7. Handle dredge material ina way that minimizes resuspension or
leaching into the water column, especially when those sediments
are known to be polluted with heavy metals, polynucleated
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) or tributyltin (TBT).

UPLAND EROSION

1. Implement and enforce the design considerations in the Cit
0 ty
of Portsmouth Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and upgrade
these methods, especially those concerning post-construction
control.

2. Eliminate exemptions for creating erosion and sediment plans for
railways, utilities, federal installations and surface mining.
Create conditional exemptions for farming and forestry practices
with strong restrictions in coastal areas.

3. Create tax exemption incentives for leaving highly erodible
soils undisturbed on construction sites and uncultivated on
farmlands. Create exemptions for preserving or creating
vegetative buffers adjacent creeks and coastline.

Specific criteria recommended by the MRC to achieve these
objectives include: siting marinas near the mouth of
slow-moving tidal creeks rather than near the headwaters,
prohibiting the structure from encroaching more than one-third
the distance across the waterway, locating slips for deep draft
vessels in the naturally deeper waters of the marina, and
designing any necessary breakwaters to minimize water
circulation impedence by using non-permanent designs.
(Disturbance of topsoil, through cultivation or construction,
increases the permeability of the soil and thus increases its
erosion potential. The bluffs along the Cox property are a
dramatic example of this phenomenon. Buffer areas along bank
edges eliminate this problem).

4. Coordinate clearing and construction schedules to minimize the
time land is left unvegetated. Install storm sewer networks as
quickly as possible in the construction process. This strategy
is most beneficial at residential development sites.

_110-

5. Design storm sewer networks to distribute and disperse
stormwater rather than concentrating it at single large
outflows. This decreases erosion stress on carrying channels
and vegetative filtering areas.

6. Consult the Norfolk County Soil Survey to determine the
engineering properties of the soils present when considering
appropriate construction techniques an newly developed coastal
sites. Design construction to accommodate any constraints.

7. Remove and store topsoil carefully to minimize loss through
mixing with subsoil and through stockpile erosion. Appropriate
placement of properly stored topsoil greatly enhances
revegetation efforts.

8. Reclaim abandoned sand and gravel pits by grading and
revegetation to eliminate erosion and off-site sediment transfer
by wind or water.

SHORELINE STABILIZATION

1. Locate vertical bulkheads (for erosion control or site grading)
upland of wetland boundaries and normal wave action. Such
construction preserves the natural erosion buffer of any
wetlands and is easier, cheaper and less susceptible to
undercutting by wave action.

2. Use shore stabilization structures that reach the waters edge
only when essential to erosion control or permitted deep port
land uses. Design the structures carefully to fit specific
requirements.

3. Avoid vertical shoreline stabilization structures that reach the
waters edge. Such designs are less resistant to wave-induced
erosion of supporting sediments and may transfer damaging wave
energy to adjacent property. Use seawalls of interlocking
blocks with parabolic curves and a rock crib at the toe in high
wave-energy areas. These structures they are highly resistent
to collapse from erosion, and they dissipate wave energy almost
completely.

4. Use terraced or sloped riprap revetments and gabions instead of
smooth, rigidly designed seawalls, even curved ones. Terraced
and sloped gabions have cheaper construction, superior wave
energy dissipation and sediment accretion rather than erosion.
Gabions also permit natural development of vegetation and
provide a suitable habitat for animals important in estuarine
food chains. These physical properties reduce maintenance and
provide greater stability over time, as well as providing
ecological advantages.

5. Stabilize eroded shoreline bluffs along the Cox Property and
Rivershore by designing combinations of regrading to gradual
slopes and revegetation (especially with wide bands of saltmarsh
cordgrass on long low toes of slopes). Place sand trapping
sills at or near the mean low water line on adjacent tidal
flats.

6. Avoid jetties unless unusual conditions require them for deep
channel maintenance. In those cases, place the jetties in a way
that avoids alterations in current pattern that would erode
adjacent property.

WETLAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

The first five strategies refer to general protection and maintenance
(establishment of a wetlands board is dealt with in the zoning and
related development control section).

1. Initiate a comprehensive public education program to heighten
awareness of the many benefits Portsmouth gains, both directly
and indirectly, from its wetland resources.

2. Permit and encourage development plans that will not modify the
wetlands directly (through filling or dredging) or indirectly
(through changes in water flow or increased sediment or
pollution). The high degree of shoreline development in
Portsmouth increases the value of the functions provided by the
remaining wetlands.

3. Maintain fully functioning wetland ecosystems by designing
vegetated buffer areas between the upland edge of the wetland
and the closest limit of land disturbance. Depending on site
conditions, these buffers should be 50 to 200 feet wide.
Adjacent upland vegetation improves wetland drainage, erosion
and flood control as well as increasing habitat value and
species diversity. If buffers are not provided as an integral
part of the wetland, upland erosion, runoff and pollution
impacts may destroy the marsh vegetation as well.

4. Avoid placing fill over marsh or coastal beach soils. This
practice usually causes subsidence and damage to roads or
buildings constructed over such fill and may cause additional
destruction of wetlands and erosion when adjoining marshlands
heave up in response to the weight of the fill. Significant
filling of wetland areas generally causes an irretrievable loss
of the wetlands and their associated values. To avoid such
effects, build on adjacent upland soils; bridge over fragile
soils; or build on driven pile supports.

-112-

When coastal zone filling is unavoidable, restrict wetland
destruction to less valuable types such as reed grass and
saltbush communities. Contain fills along beach areas at or
above the mean high water line. Destruction of non-vegetated
wetlands (e.g. tidal flats) has many of the same negative
consequences as destruction of saltmarsh.

5. Avoid covering wetlands with dredge material when other disposal
alternatives exist. In some circumstances, small amounts of
material may be deposited in ways that minimize wetland loss and
preserve site hydrology and elevation. This can be accomplished
by using a broadcast spreader to scatter spoil in a thin, even
layer or by depositing small, separate mounds in locations that
create the least impact. If dikes are created, they should be
breached at intervals and eventually removed to recreate initial
grade and drainage.

The following six strategies outline appropriate measures for
restoring or creating new marsh areas.

1. Create or restore wetlands in low energy areas such as the
headwaters of tidal creeks, shallow water areas, within the
convex banks of river and creek bends, within areas of active
sediment accumulation and away from areas with long fetch
exposure in the direction of prevailing winds. Two potential
wetland locations are Scotts Creek and Lily Creek. The
Rivershore area and the Cox Property also need stabilization,
but present greater challenges due to storm tide and wind
stresses.

2. Configure created wetlands to complement the surrounding
landform and respect natural current flow.

3. Phase restoration operations to allow continued stability of the
site during formation of the wetlands.

4. Obtain suitable material for marsh shaping from clean dredge
spoil. Material high in sand content is preferable. Use the
coarsest materials to protect exposed areas against wave erosion
by forming wide rims on the windward face of the marsh above the
elevation of average wave run-up. Use marsh peat displaced from
permitted construction in new marsh construction.

5. Plan the final grade of the marsh and rims to minimize erosion
of sediments off-site. Increase the area available for planting
by making the slope as long and gentle as possible and keeping
it within the elevations that support existing marsh vegetation
nearby.

-113-

6. Renew and restore coastal areas with three types of revegetation
associated with marsh vegetation: upland vegetation, emergent
marshes at mid-range elevations and submerged aquatic
vegetation. The interactions of tide range, elevation, slope
and salinity determine the boundary between upland-high marsh
plantings and low marsh plantings. Maximize the extent of
saltmarsh cordgrass (low marsh) without encroaching
significantly on existing tidal flats. Use cordgrass sprigs
from cultivated sources and supplement them by selective
thinning adjacent marsh. When water quality allows, consider
planting eelgrass to establish submarine meadows in locations
beneficial to marine life.

WILDLIFE

1. Maintain enough quality, extent and diversity of aquatic and
terrestrial habitat to support stable resident populations and
provide for the needs of migrating fish and wildlife
populations.

2. Apply mosquito control ditches in wetlands judiciously. Design
the ditches to drain specific problem areas; create the ditches
with rotary ditchers to minimize impact to adjacent marsh; and
avoid excessive drainage to control mosquito hatching.

3. Balance channel dredge depths between minimizing maintenance
dredging and controlling the development of oxygen-depleted
water pockets detrimental to shellfish.

4. Weigh the need for new dredged channels against the potential
for habitat degradation and associated loss of marine
productivity. Moderate impacts by avoiding existing beds of
aquatic vegetation, oyster rocks and other shellfish beds.

5. Avoid or limit dredging activities within 500 yards of oyster
grounds during July, August and September to allow establishment
of larval oysters on clean bottoms. Avoid dredging during
December, January and February because all oysters, including
adults, are susceptible to dredging effects because their
ability to clear choking silt away is lessened in cold weather.

6. Minimize dredging from March through October where spawning or
nursery grounds of anadromous fish may be affected, especially
during the active nesting and spawning period, mid-March through
June. November is the optimum month for dredging to avoid both
of these impacts to shellfish and fin fish.

The following three strategies will aid in the management of
particular rare and sensitive species known in Portsmouth.

-114-

1. Limit loss, hydrological alteration or other degradation of all
tidal or non-tidal wetlands and their buffer areas.

2. Control the selection and application of pesticides and
fertilizers to minimize their migration off-site from lawns,
gardens, orchards, croplands.

3. Provide preferred habitat for southern bog lemmings by
developing and maintaining freshwater marshes, unwooded areas
and edges between wetland and upland vegetation. The other two
strategies also benefit this species.

HISTORICAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

For a program to succeed, participation from the general public is
necessary. The final three strategies provide a foundation for any
historic preservation program.

1. Organize a grass-roots citizens' committee dedicated to historic
preservation.

2. Communicate preservation goals and programs to the public.
Communication at an early stage can lead to an effective program
later by promoting benefits to be gained by the community and
dispelling immediate fears.

3. Survey and document all existing historic and cultural resources
so that a record exists in the event any resources are
demolished or lost.

4. Enact ordinances that address protection of cultural resources.
Community preservation ordinances generally protect specific
areas such as landmarks. Commission ordinances cover a larger
political subdivision like a city or a county. Virginia's
enabling legislation its level of authority would need to be
reviewed for the process.

5. Develop an easement program for historic facades, open spaces or
scenic vistas. Easements can restrict development or
alterations to an existing facade or can restrict development
and maintain qualities of land, such as an undisturbed Indian
burial ground. Ideally, an open space easement conserves
undeveloped land areas.

6. Execute covenants between private parties to protect the
historic integrity of a specific resource. Normally a convenant
"runs with the land." Often a reverter clause is included in
the agreement that stipulates certain conditions must be met in
order for the agreement to continue.

The following three strategies recognize historic conservation's
potential for revitalization.

1. Promote tax incentives as an advantage of historic
rehabilitation. Although the Tax Recovery Action cut some of
the incentives, a 205 Investment Tax Credit is still available
for certifiably historic projects, rehabiltated in accordance
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation.

2. Provide tax abatements to assist some projects that are willing
to participate in a historic preservation program.

3. Develop a comprehensive plan for the renovation, rehabilitation
and reconstruction of waterfront properties.

-116-

HAMPTON ROAD$

116

U.S.
COAST GkJ

PROPOSED

WEST NORFO@K RD.

4,@

a VD.

264

PORTSM
LIT BLVD.
13\ VD. U.S.
NAV

GREENWOOD DR
@N,1000 D
LM A

1//C
So ous maps in this p1aA.

----------- k--------- -----------
-----------------
Figure 3-1
SIGNIFICANT COASTAL
LAND USE AREAS
LEGEND
Prime Economic Development
Areas
NC R T H

Flood/Erosion Hazard Areas
Q 1@00 Cc 0 40CO 4;0@0 FLET
EN-, C F P L AN'N'! N G Productive Natural Resource
Areas

KAWtONJOW6,
MIXED-USE

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

'4 . . ..... . . . .

PROPOS D .

M
WEST NORF4K RD,

3
Olt,
H ST.. LVD.

264

co 41.

41j
ORTSM
OUT EILVD.

V0.

r04
GREENWO
OD DR

00)

Warop .. . . . . . .

................... ............. ----------------

Figure 3-2
FUTURE LAND USE

LEGEND
Residential
\_j Commercial/ Office
Industrial
Government
Park/Active Recreation
:C 4000 9000 r[ET
CF P'_AN.'4:NG Open Space Preservation

__j

HAMPTON ROADS

CRANEY ISLAND LAND FILL

CRANEY ISLAND FUEL QE@

U.S.
COAST GUARD

PROPOs D. wt
STE

WES
T NORFOW RD.

CIE

U.S.
NAVAL
HOSPITAL
-1) 00 0
ST. BLVD.

S
P, ,p 2r04

PORTS OUT BLVD.

5\
MIR NAVAL
UiSHPYARD

6A
GREENWODD DR

O00,D
ELM AV.

v/C
ly,

------------------- ------------- --------------------

Figure 3-3
/Fl@ 71 @2 7-@
PUBLIC ACCESS
STRATEGY
@7
LEGEND
CEL
(5:@@ Public Access Points

Public Boat Ramp Locations

0 C00 :CCO 40DO 900,1 LEET
Public Views/Vistas
DEPARTM.ENT C,-

CITY OF 1PORTS-M.OUTH, VIRGIN:A

M11111111=ii mm

Figure 3-4
IDEALIZED INFILTRATION TRENCH CROSS-SECTION
DETAILING INLET CONSTRUCTION
(NOT TO SCALE)

Grano detention berm Y/

V1 W
w RUNOFF
III @ W V/ it/ V/
Wnlet grate covered
with 3-40
f crushed stone 20' Minimum getated strip
For IN-tering and Infiltration
1111ti.

Filter fabric cap
0 0 \6FIlter fabric cap

0 0 0 0
Crushed oyster shell 0 0*- 0
or aggregate fill Holding box perforated Trench dimensions calculated
0 0 0 0 on all sides and bottom
from square footage of Inpervious
0 0 0 surface served and rainfall rates
to be controlled

0 0 0 0

Filter fabric outer shell

Figre 3-5
WET RETENTION POND CROSS-SECTION SHOWING
SHALLOW MARSH FILTER
(NOT TO SCALE)

Emergent aquatic
Riser tube with debris rack Principal release pipe set on plants
negative slope to prevent clogging

Deep water zone for
gravity settling
Directed
drainage

Shallow Marsh Zone Sediments

"-Sediments
\Diffuse outflow with 2 or 3 pipes Lbmerged aquatic plants
to an infiltration trench or
stabilized channels filled with riprap Low flow drain for maintaining water in pond

Appendix ')k@k
I

I
I @

APPENDIX A

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYM DEFINITIONS

BMP - Best Management Practices
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CBIP - Chesapeake Bay Initiatives Program
CGIF - Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
COE - Council on the Environment
CP - Commerce Park
CZLU - Coastal Zone Land Use
CzM - Coastal Zone Management
CZMA - Coastal Zone Management Act
DCHR - Department of Conservation and Historic Resources
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
000 - Department of Defense
DOH - Department of Health
OPR - Division of Parks and Recreation
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FAFWRP - Federal Aid for Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIA - Flood Insurance Administration
FWPCA - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977
FWPRA - Federal Water Project Recreation Action
GAO - Government Accounting Office
GAPC - Geographic Area of Particular Concern
HRWQA Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
HRWQMP - Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan
LWCF - Land and Water Conservation Funds
MLW - Mean Low Water Elevation
MRC - Marine Resources Commission
MSL - Mean Sea Level
MWL - Mean Water Level
NESP - National Estuarine Sanctuary Program
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP - National Flood Insurance Program
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NWF - National Wildlife Federation
OCRM - Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management
ODU - Old Dominion University
PAH - Polynucleated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
POP - Planned Office Park
ppb - parts per billion
SAPCB - State Air Pollution Control Board
SCORP - State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

-A-1-

APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)

SCS - Soil Conservation Service
SEAS - Shoreline Erosion Advisory Services
STP - Sewage Treatment Plant
SVPDC - Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission
SWCB - State Water Control Board
SWCC - Soil and Water Conservation Commission
TBT - Tributylin
TNC - The Nature Conservancy
TPL - The Trust for Public Lands
USCOE - United States Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS - United States Geological Survey
VADA - Virginia Area Development Act
VCRMP - Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program
VIMS - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC - Virginia Marine Resources Commission
VOF - Virginia Outdoors Fund
VOP - Virginia Outdoors Plan
VRA - Virginia Resources Authority

-A-2-

APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL GLOSSARY

Accretion - An accumulation of wave-deposited sediment that eventually
allows invasion by vegetation.

Algal Blooms - A proliferation of living algae on the surface of lakes,
streams or ponds.

Bactericide - An agent that destroys bacteria.

Barrier Island - Elongate seafront islands formed by wave deposits, lying
offshore and generally with their longest axis parallel to the shore.

Bioassay - The employment of living organisms to determine the biological
effect of some substance, factor or condition.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - A measure of the amount of oxygen
consumed in the biological processes that break down organic matter in
water.

Biocide - A poisonous chemical that can kill living organisms; used for
eradi tion of pests (e.g., barnacles).

Buffer - A designated land or water area, along the perimeter of some land
use, whose own use is regulated so as to resist, absorb or otherwise
preclude unwanted development or other intrusions into areas beyond the
buffer.

Carbonaceous Fuels - Carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil and gasoline.

Coastal Terrace - Gently sloping landforms gradually descending to the sea;
may be natural or man-made.

Conventional Pollutants - Primarily inorganic pollutants most usually
associated to point source discharges (e.g., heavy metals, synthetic
organic compounds).

Creosote Wood-tar or coal-tar distillate used as a wood preservative.

Culvert A drain or conduit under a road or embankment.

Degradation - To be degraded, lowered, demoted, decreased in value or
usefulness.

Dendritic Channels - Small tributaries with many tooth-like extensions.

Dredge Slurry Inflow - Pipe depositing hydraulic dredge material into a
retention basin. -A-3-

APPE NOIX B (CONTINUED)

Easement An interest in the land of another that allows the easements
holdeF-specified uses or rights without actual ownership of the land; may
be conservation, recreation, historical or scenic easements.

Ecosystem - The interacting system of a biological community and its
non-living environment.

Embayment Marsh - Those marsh areas enclosed by the concave surface of a
land form, generally within the upper reaches or tributaries of tidal
creeks.

Environmental Impact Assessment - A document prepared by a federal agency
when an action supported by federal funds is analyzed for its significant
social, economic or environmental impacts.

Estuary - Area where the fresh water meets salt water; serves as nursery or
spawning and feed grounds.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria (Coliforms) - A group of organisms common to the
intestinal tracts of man and of animals.

Fringe Marsh - A narrow band of marsh vegetation existing along the banks
of a creek or river; often a remnant of a once more extensive marsh that
has been dredged or otherwise disturbed.

Gabions - Metal-screened structure (aluminum or plastic-coated galvanized
steel Ffilled with resilient materials (rip rap, concrete, vegetation
plantings) that generally serves to cushion banks or beaches from the
erosive force of moving water.

Habitat - An area possessing characteristics in which a plant or animal
naturally thrives and is ordinarily found; native environment.

Hydrology - The science encompassing the behavior of water as it occurs in
the atmosphere, on the surface of the ground, and underground.

Impervious - Not allowing water to pass through.

Indigenous (species) - Any species of wildlife native to a given land or
water area by natural occurrence.

Intertidal Beach - An unvegetated land area along the shoreline lying at an
elevation between mean high water and mean low water.

Jetty - A wall built out into the water to restrain currents, protect a
harbor, etc. -A-4-

APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

Larva - The early form of any animal that changes structurally when it
becomes an adult; particularly sensitive to pollution.

Loamy - A soil containing sufficient organic matter and less than 50
percent clay so that it exhibits some sponginess.

Mean High Water Mark - The average height of high waters over a 19-year
period.

Mean Seal Level (MSL) - The average tidal level halfway between high and
Tow-tide; used as a standard in measuring land elevation or ocean depth.

Migrants - Wildlife that use the area resources along migration route; may
be present during varying periods in spring and fall.

"Navigable Water" - Water bodies that have been or may be suitable for use
to transport intirstate or foreign commerce.

Non-point Source of Pollution - Pollution derived from overland runoff
rather then specific point source outflows from industrial process pipes.

Nutrients - Elements or compounds essential as raw materials for organism
growth and development; for example, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and
phosphorus.

Permeable, - That which can be permeated or penetrated, as by fluids.

PH - A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a material, liquid or solid.

Point Source of Pollution - Pollution generally derived from outfall pipes
directTy -related to wastewater treatment or industiral processes.

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) - Benzene-based compounds,
primarily formed as a result of the combustion of carbonaceous fuels, which
produce toxic properties on marine life.

Porous - Full of pores, through which fluids, air or light may pass.

Rechannelization - Restructuring of a linear body of water, generally a
river or creek, to heighten the passage of water; often damaging to habitat
values of the water body.

Revetment A facing of stone, cement, sandbags, or other stable material
to protect a wall or bank of earth from erosion.

-A-5-

APPENDIX B (CONTINUED)

Rip Rap - Rock, stone or other rough material placed on stream banks and
other structures to prevent water erosion or to accumulate sand.

Seawall - A rigid structure constructed at the water's edge; appropriate
for infense waterfront development such as deep water ports.
So'il Series - A group of soils with similar characteristics which are
derived from the same parent material.

Subaqueous - Those lands lying at elevations below mean low water.

Swale (grassed) - A gently curving linear depression designed to conduct
water into the ground or off-site.

Thimble Shoals - An area in the southern part of the Chesapeake Say, south
of the eastern shore, which is very productive in shellfish production; 90
percent of adult female blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay spend the winter
here.

Turbidity, - Water cloudiness caused primarily by suspended sediment.

Toxic - Of, affected by, or caused by a toxin; poisonous.

Water-Dependent Projects - Those facilities proposed for construction that
depend on access to existing natural water features for their function
(e.g., marinas, ports).

Wetlands - Land areas exhibiting soil and water characteristics that
predo antly support plants and animals that thrive in high moisture
conditions.

-A-6-

APPENDIX C

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FUNDING SOURCES

This appendix suggests a number of sources for financial assistance
available to aid Portsmouth in carrying out various Coastal Zone Management
objectives. These sources range from federal to state to private origins.
They take the form of grants, matching grants, low interest loans, and
non-financial support strategies. Sources are often focused on particular
issue areas. Many projects, however, are supported by a consortium of
federal, state and local agencies, private organizations, and industries.
Sometimes donations of property are made in lieu of funds. The majority of
program funds available are administered at the state level. Federal
assistance opportunities are highlighted in more detail because they may
be less commonly known.

FEDERAL

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987

This regional initiative under the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission has received proposed requests totalling $54.9
million to implement initiatives related to improvement of water quality,
development of outdoor recreation facilities, and protection of fish and
game resources within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The newly established
Chesapeake Bay local assistance department has more information regarding
this agreement.

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Virginia's specific state-administered programs are discussed in the State
Section of this appendix under the heading Virginia Coastal Resource
Management Program.

1965 Federal Water Project Recreation Act (FWPRA)

FWPRA mandates outdoor recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement
consideration in planning and developing all federal navigation, flood
control, relcamation and multipurpose reservoir projects. It requires
state and local coordination in project planning and management, and
encourages non-federal management of project lands and waters for
recreation and for fish and wildlife purposes. The Act provides up to 50

-A-7-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

percent of development costs for state and local recreation facilities (75
percent for fish and wildlife enhancement) on project lands, when
non-federal sponsors agree to operate and maintain these facilities. Loans
to state and local governments to help match the federal share of
development costs are empowered by the Act.

National Estuarine Sanctuary Program (NESP)

The NESP was established through Section 315, of the 1972 Coastal Zone
Management Act, as amended in 1976. This program makes available matching
grants (50 percent) to coastal states for acquiring, developing, or
operating estuarine areas set aside "to serve as natural field laboratories
in which to study and gather data on the natural and human processes
occurring within the estuaries of the coastal zone." The purpose of the
program is to establish estuarine reserve systems representative of
different coastal bia-geographical regions which can be used for scientific
study and education. The Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of
Maryland are working together to develop a Chesapeake Bay Estuarine
Research Reserve System as part of a national system established by Section
315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Funding for the reserve system
comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under which
the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program operates.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (FWPCA)

There are several EPA and joint EPA - Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Services programs that have been precipitated primarily by the FWPCA.
These funding possibilities are associated with specific objectives in
improving land use and recreational development as they relate to water
quality maintenance or improvement. Further information may be obtained
from either of these agencies.

Land and Water Conservation Fund_(LWCF)

This fund is administered by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service and is a major categorical grant program for recreation. It
provides matching grants to state and local governments for acquisition and
development of public parks and recreation areas. These funds can be made
available for urban waterfronts, access, and acquisition of stream banks,
development of recreational water areas, etc.

-A-8-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIPI

The NFIP offers federally subsidized flood insurance (up to 90 percent in
participating communities imposing required land use controls on new
development). The program discourages new developments in river floodways,
but allows floodproof construction on the floodplain fringe. Further
information regarding current requirements of eligibility may be obtained
from the regional office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Federal Aid for Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program (FAFWRP)

This program was instituted by the Federal Aid for Fish and Wildlife
Restoration Act, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. This program
offers fund-matching grants for planners and developers interested in
managing land and water areas for wildlife. Further information may be
obtained from the regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries.

STATE

Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program (VCRMP)

This program was initiated by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 and is overseen by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
of the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration. The program is
administered by the Council on the Environment and makes the Commonwealth
eligible for federal CZMA funds. The program offers grants for waterfront
development. State coastal zone grants can be used for comprehensive
waterfront planning to support planning, design and engineering studies for
urban waterfront revitalization, including protection and restoration of
historic, cultural, and aesthetic resources. Industrial and port
development and increased coastal access for public recreation purposes are
included. Section 306A of the National Legislation contains provisions
authorizing grants for redevelopment of deteriorating and underutilized
urban waterfronts and ports, provision of access to public coastal areas,
and the preservation and restoration of certain other valuable coastal
areas. Page V-23 of Virginia's Coastal Resource Management Program and
Final Environmental Impact Statement states,

"Any local government or regional authority wishing to apply for waterfront
.development funds through the VCRMP must request that the area be
designated a Waterfront Development GAPC. The public benefits to be

-A-9-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

derived from the designation of the area must be identified and
substantiated. Public benefits would include such things as increased
recreational access, creation of new local employment, provision for
docking and marketing facilities for local watermen, etc."

A designation request must accompany any application for funds to a
watefront development GAPC. In order to achieve designation as a
waterfront development GAPC, an area must have a comprehensive development
and management plan that meets all local, state and federal environmental
requirements. Adequate access to the site must be available. Finally,
full public participation in the planning and development of the area must
be encouraged and facilitated.

Commission on Game and Inland Fisheries (CGIF)

The Governor's budget for 1988-1990 allocates $400,000 to be distributed by
the CGIF to localities for developing improved public access (boat ramps,
etc.) for fishing and recreational boating opportunities. More information
regarding potential opportunities within Portsmouth may be obtained from
the Chesapeake regional office.

Department of Conservation and Historical Resources (OCHR)

In the 1988-1990 budget, $5.7 million (general fund) and $2.9 million
(nongeneral funds) are allocated to the DCHR to expand the Best Management
Practices Program (BMPP) on agricultural land and to improve erosion and
sediment control on construction sites. A total of $15.7 million is now
available for administration of these programs. Further information may be
obtained from the Division of Soil and Water Conservation within the DCHR.

Virginia Outdoors Fund (VOF)

The VOF is an important supporting funding source for acquisition of
waterfront recreational land. The Division of Parks and Recreation within
the DCHR administers the fund in accordance with the Virginia Outdoors
Plan. Federal funds allocated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
are used to match various state and local funds. The majority of eligible
projects are state parkland acquisition, fisheries projects and Regional
Parks Authority projects. Funds totalling $5.7 million dollars are
available to DCHR to participate in this joint funding program. More
information may be obtained from the DCHR or the Commission on Game and
Inland Fisheries.

-A-10-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

Virginia Resources Authority (VRA)

The VRA was created through the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Program (CBIP) to
relieve some of the future capital needs for water and wastewater treatment
by providing low interest financing strategies for community facilities.
There is a three-tier approach to funding. AAA-rated bank bonds are sold
through a program administered by the VRA. A pooled loan is available on
the open market. (These are AA-rated variable interest loans to reduce
interest rates.) This loan pool is also administered by the VRA nd
currently has a biennial budget of $100 million for construction of new
water treatment facilities. Finally, the state water control board
administers a revolving loan fund for design and engineering costs. The
entire program is overseen by the Council on the Environment.

Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS)

Provided through the Division of Soil and Water Conservatoin of the
Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, this service assists
private landowners and municipalities in controlling shoreline erosion
problems. Otherwise expensive professional site inspections, written
engineering analyses and recommendations are provided free of charge
through SEAS. Inspectors can often recommend much less expensive (and more
environmentally sound) vegetative stabilization designs. SEAS cannot,
however, develop detailed design plans or provide construction money for
recommended measures.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND TAX RELIEF STRATEGIES

This section deals primarily with ways to set aside public land (parks,
natural areas, cultural sites) with financial packages that include land
transfer methods that do not require capital outlay or that.can be used in
conjunction with outright acquisition.

The Trust for Public Lands (TPL)

One of the most effective non-governmental methods for setting aside public
land is the establishment of land trusts managpd by non-profit citizen
organizations. The TPL assists concerned community groups in forming a
land trust and pre-acquiring real estate. Land donations, low cost sale
and protective land use agreements made in negotiation with a non-profit

-A-11-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

land trust are tax-deductible and offer substantial tax benefits to
individuals and corporations. The TPL provides a computerized tax benefit
analysis that helps structure customized transactions which benefit all
parties. The TPL has helped create over 100 local land trusts protecting
more than 20,000 acres. Further information can be obtained from the
Southeast Regional office in Tallahassee, (904) 222-9280.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, TNC raises funds to protect
ecologically important areas like remnant wetlands or habitats for
endangered species. Two notable examples in Virginia are the Great Dismal
Swamp and the Virginia Coast Reserve, but TNC often deals with smaller
parcels. TNC receives tax benefits from land transfers that are similar
to those enjoyed by the TPL.

Land sold at less than full market value allows previous owners to deduct
the difference between full market value and actual selling price from
federal income tax. The seller also enjoys a reduction in federal capital
gains tax. TNC also handles donations from public organizations,
commercial corporations and private individuals to assemble consolidated
land areas and acquisition plans.

The Audubon Society

Although most of the land acquired by the Audubon Society has been donated,
some has been purchased either independently or jointly with other
conservation groups.

The Audubon Society does not always purchase the full fee (all the rights)
in land and may acquire only a partial interest to prevent development. In
addition, where full ownership is transferred to the Society, land may be
leased to other groups for management and use.

In addition to protecting donated and purchased lands, the Audubon Society
sometimes provides wardens and other management for State and locally-owned
land when management funds are not otherwise available.

-A-12-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

OTHER PRIVATE SOURCES

The Sierra Club has a strong interest protecting wetlands and aiding
acquisition groups (listed above) in their efforts. The National Wildlife
Federation (NWF) uses its Land Heritage Program as a conduit for channeling
gifts of land to managing community groups. In this way, the NWF acts as a
clearinghouse for conservation land transfers. Local citizen conservation
groups are often founded to perform the organizational, fund-raising and
long-term management duties of land acquisition projects.

Actual sources of funds (exclusive of conservation action groups) may come
from the Izaak Walton League of America Endowment, private industries,
philanthropic corporations or foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller.

Land Protection through ManagementAgreements

Through deed restrictions, convenants and easements, private landowners may
protect their lands even after their death or sale of the property. Tax
advantages are associated with each of these agreements too. Conservation
groups and land trusts can provide model language to incorporate
conservation agreements, become a party to preservation agreements and act
as recipients of easements.

Deed restrictions are clauses restricting the future use of land. They
often include a reverter clause that states that if land is not managed
properly (e.g. wetlands are destroyed), it returns to its original owner,
heir or a third party, such as a conservation group.

Convenants are contracts between a landowner and another party stating that
the landowner will use or refrain from using his land in an agreed-upon
manner. These are appropriate when deed restrictions are not legally
enforceable. Private landowners may even be paid by conservation groups to
attach covenants to their deeds, in lieu of purchasing the land.

Conservation easements are used to transfer certain management privileges
to land to specified conservation groups without transferring title to the
land. These may be positive easements (e.g., allowing public access to the
waterfront) or negative easements (e.g., requiring landowners to refrain
from construction near the coastal zone). Appurtenant easements (those
benefitting adjacent lands, e.g., restricting cultivation of land adjacent
a neighbor's wetland) are more legally binding than other types.

-A-13-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

Tax Incentives

The major tax incentives that encourage wetland preservation or offset
negative tax implications of regulations are discussed in general in this
section. A tax lawyer should be consulted to work out an optimum plan for
eligible tax relief in site-specific scenarios. Four tax types are
discussed in this section: Real estate, income, gift and estate taxes.

Real estate taxes are assessed based on existing market value of the
property and usually include a factor for development potential.
Preferential real estate tax assessment clauses are utilized in Virginia
for open space/conservation lands. Among other things, this tax law
relieves elevated tax assessments associated with increasing development
pressure. The statute is not expressly designed for wetland protection but
does not conflict with that objective. The most effective implementation
of preferential assessment requires payment of deferred taxes if the lands
are ever converted to a use incompatible with open space or conservation.
This protects against use of the provision as a tax dodge while waiting for
the sale value of the property to escalate. Massachusetts and, to a lesser
extent, New York, have real estate tax incentive laws aimed specifically at
strengthening the inducement to preserve wetlands in particular.

Income tax advantages are available to any landowner (individual or
corporate) who donates land to a non-profit entity or enters into any of
the land protection management agreements with a non-profit entity listed
in the previous section. Again, such an entity could be a land trust,
conservation group or government body. Federal Internal Revenue Code
allows landowners to deduct the full value of capitol gain tax an donated
properties. Depending on the ratio of that deduction to annual adjusted
gross income, the landowner may carry over deductions for up to a six-year
period (often the case for individual landowners holding substantial
acreage). The deduction is limited to donations or management agreements
that are "exclusively for conservation purposes" and "granted in
perpetuity." In other words, the land must be forever set aside for
conservation purposes including: preservation, recreation, education,
scenic enjoyment or historical areas.

Gift taxes are assessed upon transfer of an interest in property not
involving an actual sale (as in a donation). However, the Federal Internal
Revenue Code also allows that such donations to government units or
non-profit organizations are not subject to gift taxes. The same
restrictions of perpetual conservation use also applies to this allowance.

-A-14-

APPENDIX C (CONTINUED)

Estate taxes are similar to gift taxes in that a non-sale transfer of land
is involved. Upon an owner's death these taxes become payable by the
heir. This tax can be especially harsh on an individual landowner holding
substantial undeveloped acreage. Pressure to pay could result in sale or
subdivision of the land just to pay the tax. In order to prevent
involuntary development of the land, a property owner can bequest the land
or a portion of it to a non-profit conservation group or enter into an
easement agreement that allows his heirs to live on or otherwise use the
property while releasing its management to the conservation group. Such
arrangements can lessen the estate tax to a tolerable amount so the
heir can continue to own the property-

APPENDIX D

INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Performance standards for the W-2 District could include the following:

0 Establishments should be required to document and have on file with
the City all industrial materials used and stored on the site, as per
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and State Water
Control Board regulations.

0 Outdoor storage of materials is permitted at a setback of 50 feet
upland of the mean high water mark provided such materials are stored
in completely enclosed water-tight containers or structures.

0 No discharge of waste into the water shall be permitted except from
those facilities which have received an NPDES permit from the State
Water Control Board.

0 Any alteration of the shoreline shall require a permit issued in
accordance with the requirements set forth in this zoning code.

0 The following additional performance standards should apply to all
industrial uses:

Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shaded wherever necessary to
avoid casting direct light an any residential use.

Noise. Industrial uses shall not produce either continuous or
intermittent noise at the property line at a level which causes harm
to adjacent property owners.

Odor. Industrial uses shall not emit odors or odor-causing
substances that can be detected at the property line.

Vibrations. Industrial uses shall not produce vibrations that can be
detected at the property line.

Air Pollution, Smoke, Dust. Industrial uses shall keep air pollution
and smoke at an acceptable minimum as determined by the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Board and shall keep dust and other particulate
matter borne by air from leaving the lot by using landscaping or
other appropriate means.

Heat, Glare. Industrial uses that produce intense heat or glare
shall only be conducted in a totally enclosed building.

-A-16-

APPENDIX D (CDNTINUED)

Toxic Material. Industrial uses shall not emit toxic or noxious
matter which is injurious to human health or comfort. Where such
emission could be produced as a result of an accident or equipment
malfunction, adequate safety precautions considered suitable for the
industry involved shall be taken.

Explosive Material. Industrial uses shall not store, utilize or
manufacture pyrophoric and explosive powders and dusts, or materials
or products that decompose by detonation.

APPENDIX E

SOURCES

Adams, Donald D., Dennis T. Walsh, Chester E. Grosch, and Chin Y. Kuo.
Investigative Monitoring of Sewage Outfalls and Contiguous Waters of
Hampton Roads Elizabeth and James Rivers, and the Lower Chesapeake
Bay, Virginia, from June 1973 to May 1975. Norfolk: Old Dominion
University, 1977.

Adams, Lowell W. and Daniel L. Leedy, Eds. Integrating Man and Nature in
the Metropolitan Environment: Proceedings of a National Symposium on
Urban Wildlife. Columbia, Maryland: National Institute for Wildlife,
1986.

Anderson, Gary F., Bruce J. Neilson, and Donald H. Campbell. Management
Practice Evaluation for Urban Areas in the Hampton Roads. Gloucester
Point: Ti-rginia Institute of Marine Science, 1982.

Background and Problem Assessment Report for the Elizabeth River: General
Information Bulletin No. 557. n.p.: Virginia State Water Control
Board, 1984.

Beal, Ernest 0. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North
Carolina with Habitat Data. Raleigh: North Carolina Agricultural
Research-fe-rvice, 1977.

Beauchamp, Robert G., ed. Marine Environmental Planning Guide for the
Hampton Roads/Norfolk Naval Operating Area. Washington: U.S. Naval
Oceanographic Office, 1974.

Bender, M.E., R.J. Diaz, P.F. Larsen. A Program to Monitor the
Environmental Effects of Shipyard Expansion: An Interim Report by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point: Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, 1973.

Bender, Michael E., Robert J. Huggett, Albert Y. Kuo, Robert J. Byrne.
Craney Island Rehandling Basin: Physical and Chemical Studies. n.p.:
Virginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science, College
of William and Mary, 1984.

Bigford, Thomas E. "The Implications Of Relative Sea Level Change on
Coastal Decision-Making." Renewable Resources Journal. Summer 1987:
5-7, 24-29.

Bosco, Cindy and Bruce Neilson. Interpretation of Water Quality Data from
the Nansemond and Chuckatuck Estuaries with Respect to Point and
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. Gloucester Point: Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, 1983.

-A-18-

APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)

Braun, Lucy E. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. New York: The
Free Press, 1950.

Butt, Marshall, W. Portsmouth: Under Four Flags, 1752-1961. Portsmouth:
T-
Portsmouth Historica Association, 1961.

City of Portsmouth Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook: Standards,
Criteria, and Guidelines. Portsmouth: City of Portsmouth, 1976.

City of Portsmouth, Virginia: Proposed Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
Pueblo: KelTy-and Potter, P.C.; James Duncan and Associates;
Hart-Freeland-Roberts, Inc., 1988.

Clark, John. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management
of the Coastal Zone. Washington: The Conservation Foundation, 1974.

Clark, John R. Coastal Ecosystem Management: a Technical Manual for the
Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1977.

"Coastal Grants Emphasize Local Action." Virginia Natural Resources
Newsletter. Vol. 1, No. 1: 1.

"Coastal Management: Planning on the Cutting Edge." Journal of the
American Planning Association. Vol. 51, No. 3 (1985): 263-352.

Coastal Primary Sand Dunes/Reaches Guidelines: Guidelines for the
Permitting of Activities which Encroach into Coastal Primary Sand
Dunes/Reaches. Newport News: Virginia Marine Resources Commission,
1986.

Comprehensive Elizabeth River Water Quality Management Plan: Preliminary
Management Recommendations. n.p.: Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency
with Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1986.

Continuity through Conservation: An Inventory of Notable Architecture in
Portsmouth, Virginia. Portsmouth: Commission of Architectural Review,
1977.

Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1.
Vicksburg: Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Section, 1987.

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Colet, and Edward T. LaRoe.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

-A-19-

APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)

Davis, Graham J. and Mark M. Brinson. Responses of Submersed Vascular
Plant Communities to Environmental Change. Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1980.

Downtown Portsmouth Parking Study. Portsmouth: Southeastern-Virginia
Planning District Commission, 1985.

Elizabeth River Annotated Bibliography: Information Bulletin No. 568.
Tidewater: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1987.

The Elizabeth River: An Environmental Perspective: Basic Data Bulletin
61. n.p.: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1983.

Esch, Gerald W. and Robert W. McFarlane. Thermal Ecology II: Proceedings
of a Symposium Held at Augusta, Georgia April 2-5, 1975. Washington:
Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development
Administration, 1976.

Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Coastal Management
Program for the State of Florida. n.p.: Office of Coastal Zone
Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Florida
Office of Coastal Management Department of Environmental Regulation,
1981.

Gleason, Henry A. The New Britton and Brown Illustrated Flora of the
Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, Vol. 1. New York:
Hafner, 1952.

Goodin, John T., ed. Virginia's Endangered Species. n.p.: n.p., 1985.

Graetz, Karl E. Seacoast Plants of the Carolinas for Conservation and
Beautification. Raleigh: North Carolina State University, 1973.

Greeson, Phillip E., John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark, eds. Wetland
Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. Minneapolis:
American Water Resources Association, 1978.

Hampton Roads Income Trends and Analysis. Chesapeake: Southeastern
Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987.

Hampton Roads Office Study. Chesapeake: Southeastern Virginia Planning
District Commission, 1987.

Hampton Roads Water Quality Management Plan: 1983 Implementation Status
Report and HRWQMP Plan Update. Norfolk: Southeastern Virginia
Planning District Commission, 1983._

-A-20-

APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)

Henry, Alvin Francis. Soil Survey: Norfolk County, Virginia. Washington:
U.S. Government PriiTt-i-ngOffice, 1958.

Highton, Marybeth. "Hampton Roads Report: Featuring Norfolk, Chesapeake,
Suffolk, and Virginia Beach." Pace. February 1988: Hl-H73.

Huffman, Robert T., Gary E. Tucker, Jean W. Wooten, Charles V. Klimas, Mike
W. Freel, Stephen W. Forsythe, James S. Wilson. Preliminary Guide to
the Onsite Identification and Delineation of the Wetlands of the South
Atlantic United States. Vicksburg: Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1982.

Hydric Soils of the United States. Washington: United States Department
of Ag lture, Soil Conservation Service, 1985.

Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States.
Corvalis: Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and
Development, 1976.

James Water Supply Plan, Part 2 of 2. n.p.: Commonwealth of Virginia,
Virginia State Water Control Bo-ard, n.d.

Kusler, Jon A. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guidebook.
Washington: Environmental Law Institute, 1983.

Lakatos, David F. and Lauressa J. McNemar. Storm Quality Management Using
Wetlands. West Chester: Walter B. Satterthwaite Associates, Inc.,
n.d.

Laws of Virginia Relating to Subaqueous Lands, Wetlands, and Coastal
Primary Sand Dunes. Newport News: Marine Resources Commission, 1982.

Longley, William L., Rodney Jackson, and Bruce Snyder. Managing Oil and
Gas Activities in Coastal Environments. n.p.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Services Program, 1978.

Magette, William L. and Richard A. Weismiller. Nutrient Management for
Water Quality Protection. n.p.: n.p., 1985.

1987 SVPDC Economic Outlook. Chesapeake: Southeastern Virginia Planning
District Commission, 1987.

Neilson, Bruce J. Water Quality in the Small Coastal Basins: A Report to
the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. Gloucester Point: Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, 1976.

-A-21-

APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)

Niering, William A. Wetlands. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia. Washington: 99th Congress, 1st
Session, House Document 99-85 Vol. 11, 1985.

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Portsmouth Metropolitan Area Projections and
Economics Base Analysis. Norfolk: Norfolk Department of Planning and
Budget, 1985.

Notes on Virginia. 31 (1987). Virginia Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources.

Nonpoint Source Control Program for the Hampton Roads Area. Hampton Roads:
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1983.

Open Space-2000: A Long Range Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Plan for
Portsmouth, Virginia. Portsmouth: The Open Space Task Force and the
Task Force Review Committee, 1985.

Owen, Dennis W., Lynne M. Rogers, and Margaret Peoples. Shoreline
Situation Report: Cities of Chesapeake, Norfolk, and Portsmouth.
Gfo-ucester Point: Virginii Institute of Marine Science, 1976.

Owens, David W. "Coastal Management in North Carolina." American Planning
Association Journal (1985): 322-329.

Planning for Urban Fishing and Waterfront Recreation. Washington: Urban
Wildlife Research Center, Inc., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.

A Planning Proposal for Northside. Portsmouth: The Waterfront Committee,
n.d.

Plans for Action: Comprehensive Plan Part III. Portsmouth: City of
Portsmouth, 1980.

Proceedings of the Bi-State Conference on the Chesapeake Bay. Raliegh:
Commonwealth of Virginia, 1977.

Progress Report of Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Program, February 1987.
Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia Council on the Environment, 1987.

Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1964.

Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986 Wetland Plant List: Southeast Region. St.
Petersburg: Wetland Ecology Group, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1986.

-A-22-

APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)

Reppert, R.T., et al. Wetland Values, Concepts, and Methods for Wetlands
Evaluation. Ft. Belvoir: USA Engineers Institute for Water Resources,
1979.

Residential Erosion and Sediment Control: Objectives, Principles, and
Design Considerations. Washington: 'Urban Land Institute, American
Society of Civil EnFineers, National Association of Home Builders,
1978.

Residential Storm Water Management: Objectives, Principles and Design
Considerations. Washington: Urban Land Institute, American Society of
Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, 1975.

Robblee, Michael Bassett. Community Structure and Production in a Marsh on
the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, Virginia. Thesis. n.p.:
Old Dominion University Department of Biology, 1973.

Shore Protection Guidelines. Washington: Department of the Army Corps of
Engineers, 1971.

Silberhorn, Gene M. Common Plants Of The Mid-Atlantic Coast: A Field
Guide. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Southeastern Virginia Recreation Facilities Inventory. Chesapeake:
Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission, 1987.

State of North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. n.p.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, n.d.

Subaqueous Guidelines: Guidelines for the Permitting of Activities which
Encroach in, on or over the Submerged Lands of the Commonwealth of
VirgTn-ia. Newport News: Marine Resources Commission, 1986.

Subdivisions: City of Portsmouth, Virginia. Tallahassee: Municipal Code
Corporation, 1982.

Supplemental Information Report to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Norfolk Harbor and Channels, Virginia Deepening and
Disposal.. Norfolk: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986.

Tiner, Ralph W., Jr., Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and
Recent Trends. Newton Corner: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat
Resources, 1984.

Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Initiatives: First Annual Progress Report.
Richmond: Commonwealth of Virginia, 1985.

-A-23-

APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)

Virginia's Environment: 1984-86 Biennial Report Council on the
Environment. Richmond: Council on the Environment 1987.

Virginia Natural Resources Newsletter. Vol. 1, No. 2.

Virginia Natural Resources Newsletter. Vol. 2, No. 1.

The Virginia Outdoors Plan 1984: A Plan for Meeting Virginia's Outdoor
Recreational Needs and Conserving the Environment. Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division
of Parks and Recreation, 1984.

Virginia Wildlife. August 1987.

Wetlands Guidelines. n.p.: Department of Wetlands Ecology, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, n.d.

Wharton, Charles H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. The
Ecology of Bottomland Hardwood Swamps of the Southeast: A Community
Profile. Washington: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Services Program, 1982.

Zoning: City of Portsmouth, Virginia. Tallahassee: Municipal Code
Corporation, 1973.

-A-24-

DATE DUE

CAYLOHDJNO. 2333

WVOOLMFff

3 6668 14106 5047