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


                                                                   Task 56      FINAL PROM HRPDC
                                                                   FY 1"3       Southern Watershed Management Plan



                 SOUTHERN WATERSHED
                                SPECIAL AREA
              MANAGEMENT PROGRAM





                           o'?,a-orf,,,-


                    n


                                      4, ".A


                   All








                   I 4il
                 "'Art






                   A1m2!p"y,
              0 4qqLLjrjur ANa
                                                                          MPTON RQADS
                    of                                               PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION

                                                                           APRIL 1995







                          HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION


             CHESAPEAKE                                        POQUOSON
                DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF                               L. CORNELL BURCHER
                W. JOE NEWMAN                                      ROBERT M. MURPHY
                JAMES W. REIN                                  PORTSMOUTH
             FRANKLIN                                              JOHNNY M. CLEMONS
                ROBERT E. HARRELL                                  V. WAYNE ORTON
                JOHN J. JACKSON                                    P. WARD ROBINETT, JR.


             GLOUCESTER COUNTY                                 SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY
                BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR.                           ROWLAND L. TAYLOR
                WILLIAM H. WHITLEY                                 C. HARRELL TURNER


             HAMPTON                                           SUFFOLK
                JAMES L. EASON                                     MARIAN B. ROGERS
                ROBERT J. O'NEILL, JR.                             MYLES E. STANDISH
                JOSEPH H. SPENCER, 11
                                                               VIRGINIA BEACH
             ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY                                  JOHN A. BAUM
                W. DOUGLAS CASKEY                                  ROBERT K. DEAN
                O.A.SPADY                                          W. W. HARRISON, JR.
                                                                   LOUIS R. JONES
             jAMES CITY COUNTY                                     MEYERA E. OBERNDORF
                ROBERT A. MAGOON, JR.                              NANCY K. PARKER
                DAVID B. NORMAN                                    JAMES K. SPORE,

             NEWPORT NEWS '                                    WILLIAMSBURG
                CHARLES C. ALLEN                                   JACKSON C. TUTTLE, 11
                JOE S. FRANK                                       JEANNE ZEIDLER
                EDGAR E. MARONEY
                                                               YORK COUNTY
             NORFOLK                                               PAUL W. GARMAN
                MASON C. ANDREWS, M.D.                             DANIEL M. STUCK
                HERBERT M. COLLINS, SR.
                PAUL D. FRAIM
                JAMES B'. OLIVER, JR.
                G. CONOLY PHILLIPS                        *EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER



                                               PROJECT STAFF



             ARTHUR L. COLLINS                      EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY


             JOHN M. CARLOCK                        DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                      PLANNING
             MARTHA H. LITTLE                       PHY SICAL PLANNER 11
             JERYL G. ROSE                          PHYSICAL PLANNER 11
             ANDREW L. GARMAN                       PHYSICAL PLANNER


             KATHRYNE LOUZEK                        ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

             ROBERT C. JACOBS                       DIRECTOR OF GRAPHIC & PRINTING SERVICES
             MICHAEL R. LONG                        GRAPHICS TECHNICIAN 11
             JOSEPH L. MARHEFKA                     GRAPHICS TECHNICIAN 11
             RACHAEL V. PATCHETT                    REPROGRAPHIC SUPERVISOR












                          SOUTHERN WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA


                                  MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


                                         FINAL REPORT










                 This report was produced, in part, through financial assistance from
                 the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to Virginia
                 Coastal Resources Management Program Grant No. NA370ZO360-01
                 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
                  Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone
                              Management Act of 1972, as amended.


                 Preparation of this report was included in the HRPDC Work Program
                    for FY 1993-94, approved by the Commission at its Executive
                    Committee Meeting of March 17, 1993, and the HRPDC Work
                     Program for FY 1994-95, approved by the Commission at its
                          Executive Committee Meeting of March 16, 1994.










                                          PREPARED BY


                       HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION


                                           APRIL 1995



         3-   \-P    \,A
         @j











                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS



             1.  BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION             ...........................              1


             11. METHODOLOGY--THE SWAMP PROCESS               ........................             2


                 A. Background     ..........................................                      2
                 B. Objectives    ...........................................                      3
                 C. Issue Identification   .....................................                   4


             Ill. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES           ...............................                4


                 A. Mission   .............................................                        4
                 B. Water Quality    .........................................                     5
                 C. Goals and Objectives    ....................................                   6
                 D. Implementation Process       .................................                 8


             IV. RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS            ...............................                9


             V.  EDUCATION     ............................................                       11


             VI. CONCLUSION       ..........................................                      11


             LIST OF FIGURES


                 1. Southern Watershed Location Map       ...............         Following Page 1
                 2. Southern Watershed Rural Areas Map       .............        Following Page 8
                 3. Southern Watershed Land Use Map        .........................              81


             APPENDIX A
                 Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC)--SWAMP             ............       13


             APPENDIX B
                 LGAC Meeting Summaries--SWAMP          ...........................               15


             APPENDIX C
                 Sample LGAC Survey        ....................................                   71


             APPENDIX D
                 LGAC Survey Response Synthesis        ............................               73


             APPENDIX E
                 Waterbody Uses      ........................................                     77



                                                        i                   Revised May 17, 1995










            APPENDIX F
                Southern Watershed Land Use Map     ...........................           80

            APPENDIX G
                Water Quality Monitoring Information  ..........................          82


            APPENDIX H
                Water Quality Information--SWAMP    ...........................           89


            APPENDIX I
                Draft Memorandum of Agreement
                Virginia Beach and Chesapeake   ..............................            96

            APPENDIX J
                Future Tasks and Studies
                Preliminary Scopes of Work  ...............................               101


            APPENDIX K
                Educational Brochures  ...................................                107


































                                                                       Revised May 17, 1995










                    SOUTHERN WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                                 FINAL REPORT



                 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION


                    The Southeastern Virginia Region is a physical bridge between the Chesapeake
                 Bay and the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Complex. Both estuaries are home to
                 a large variety of unique environmental resources and both are subject to intense
                 development pressures and, at the present time, to intense management scrutiny.
                 However, the Southern Watershed, the bridge between the two, has received
                 relatively little attention from outside the local area. This project to establish a
                 "Southern Watershed Special Area Management Program" (SWAMP) offers the
                 opportunity to focus coordinated attention on the watershed's unique resources.

                    The Southern Watershed, which encompasses Back Bay and the North
                 Landing and Northwest Rivers, is a microcosm of its two larger estuarine
                 neighbors. The Watershed covers approximately 325 square miles in two cities.
                 Back Bay and the Northwest River are fairly shallow and influenced primarily by
                 wind tides. Although deeper, the North Landing River is also dominated by wind
                 tides. These subwatersheds are integrally related through common resources,
                 hydrological connections and their common mouth - the Currituck Sound.

                    The Southern Watershed contains valuable wetlands, identified by the U.S.
                 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as "high priority." It has also been identified as
                 a critical area in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Wildlife is
                 abundant, although there have been significant declines in the populations of
                 waterfowl, submerged aquatic vegetation and certain species of fish. Natural
                 area inventories have identified extensive areas of critical habitat for rare and
                 endangered plant and animal species. The Watershed contains some of the most
                 diverse and extensive wetlands in Virginia. Natural area inventories, conducted
                 by the Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage
                 (DCR-DNH), have identified exemplary wind tide marshes, forested swamps and
                 pocosins. The area supports at least forty (40) rare species; in fact, the rare
                 species concentrations of the Watershed are the highest of any locality east of
                 the Blue Ridge. The North Landing River and its tributaries are designated as a
                 Virginia Scenic River. All three water bodies and their tributaries are included in
                 local Scenic Waterway Systems established by the Cities of Chesapeake and
                 Virginia Beach.

                    The waters of the Watershed are used for water supply, recreation,
                 navigation, habitat support, and irrigation. The Northwest River serves as the
                 primary public water supply source for the City of Chesapeake. The North
                 Landing River is an integral element of the Intracoastal Waterway and is heavily
                 used by both recreational and commercial vessels. Back Bay functions primarily






                                                         N.






                                                      JAMES                      17
                                                      CITY


                                                                  64

                                                      WILLIAMSBURG'      YCRK

                                                                                                     CHESAPEAKE BAY




                                                                          1@1
                                                                                                POQUOSON


                                                  SURRY                                      MPTON


                                                             ISLE
                                                          OF WIGHT

                            SUSSEX
                                              6
                                                                                                 NORFOLK


                                                                            32                                        44
                                                                                                  j
                                                                                                        64
                                                                                            RT MOUTH
                                                         58                       13

                                   FRANKLIN                                 SUFFOLK

                                                                                                                                      tn
                58                                      58

                           SOUTHAMPTON                             13
                                                J
                                                                ell,  VIRGINIA



                                                                                                                   CURRIT' K
                                                                  GATES
                                                                                                                     168
                                                                                158                    CAMDEN

                                                                                                                                      0



                                                                                               ELIZABETH CIT.
                                                   . . . . . . .                PERQUIMANS   \                     .
                                                                                                       PASQUOTANK
                                                                                                                                 0

                                                                                      hERTFORD
                                                                  <#>
                                                                                        10


                                                                      17
              SOUTHERN WATERSHED                                                                         ALSEMARLESOUND                     N1.
                                   AREA:
                           VIRGINIA BEACH
                                      AND
                              CHESAPEAKE


                                                                                                              10            20            3
                                                                                                             SCALE IN MILES









                 as habitat for a large number of important wildlife species. All serve as receiving
                 waters for agricultural and urban stormwater runoff and as aesthetic resources.
                 All components of the Watershed are classified by the state's Nonpoint Source
                 (Section 319) Assessment as High Priority watersheds for nonpoint source
                 pollution management.

                    Development pressures are increasing, especially in the northern portions of
                 the Watershed. These pressures are placing increased stress on both the aquatic
                 and terrestrial resources of the Watershed. In response to these pressures, the
                 Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach have adopted Comprehensive Plans to
                 facilitate improved management of water quality, critical resources and
                 development activities. Chesapeake has attempted to protect its water supply
                 through controls on development in the Watershed. Both cities have identified
                 the need for additional water quality and other resource information to support
                 management decisions.        This is especially true with respect to nutrient
                 management and nonpoint source pollution controls.            Both recognize the
                 inextricable relationship between water quality and the resources of the
                 Watershed.


                    Implicit in the recitation of resources present in the Watershed and the uses
                 to which those resources - both land and water - are put, is the realization that
                 the various uses may, and frequently do, conflict with each other. Recognized
                 conflicts include land use versus water quality, land use versus water supply,
                 recreational versus commercial versus habitat uses of the waters and lands and
                 so forth. It is also recognized that the goals of the various resource managers
                 may conflict with each other. In many cases, however, uses and goals are
                 mutually supportive.



             11. METHODOLOGY--THE SWAMP PROCESS


                 A. Background

                        To address these potentially conflicting uses and management initiatives
                    as well as to identify mutually supportive goals, the need for improved
                    coordination of planning and management efforts between the groups and
                    agencies in the region became apparent. To achieve this end, the Hampton
                    Roads Planning District Commission, the regional comprehensive planning
                    organization, elected to serve as the coordinator of the Southern Watershed
                    Area Management Program (SWAMP) and facilitator of the conflict resolution
                    process to be developed through SWAMP.

                        Initially, active participants in the program were to include all of the
                    primary governmental agencies that own and manage the resources in the
                    Watershed including private sector participants such as land conservation and


                                                        2









                    public interest organizations, the agriculture and development communities
                    and local civic organizations. Due to the potential impacts of this project on
                    other activities underway in the region and the perception by staff of the two
                    local governments that a strong commitment by the local governments was
                    essential prior to the initiation of a broad consensus building effort, it was
                    decided that the primary participants would be an advisory committee made
                    up of staff from the local governments and one participant from the Virginia
                    Dare Soil and Water Conservation District. For a list of project participants,
                    see Appendix A. Representatives of the other agencies and groups would be
                    brought in for participation later in the process after consensus had been
                    reached by the local government advisory committee on goals and objectives
                    for the Watershed.


                       The project by HRPDC to facilitate the institutional coordination to ensure
                    that a comprehensive approach is developed for future management of the
                    Southern Watersheds of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach was funded in part
                    by the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program.              The Local
                    Government Advisory Committee for SWAMP which consists of local
                    government technical resource and management staff from the cities of
                    Virginia Beach and Chesapeake and a representative from the Virginia Dare
                    Soil and Water Conservation District began meeting in February, 1994.

                 B. Objectives

                       The objectives established for the Southern Watershed Area Management
                    Program (SWAMP) included the following:

                    1. To ensure that resource management initiatives affecting the Southern
                       Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach are coordinated and
                       integrated.

                    2.' To develop  a consensus on Goals for Environmental Management in the
                       Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.

                    3. To develop a consensus on critical Watershed problems and concerns in
                       order to establish priorities for future technical studies.

                    4. To maintain momentum toward a coordinated management approach that
                       was developed during development of a 1992 Proposal for a Southern
                       Watershed Special Area Management Plan under Section 309 of the
                       Coastal Zone Management Act and during development of the HRPDC
                       study, Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roada
                       Virainia Portion of the A/P Watershed,





                                                       3









                    5. To develop, if appropriate, a Proposal for development of a Southern
                       Watershed Special Area Management Plan, in accordance with the
                       requirements of the Section 309 Coastal Zone Enhancements Program.

                       The Local Government Advisory Committee met over a period of
                    approximately one year, more frequently and intensively between November,
                    1994 and March, 1995 (See Appendix B for Summaries of the meetings).
                    HRPDC staff facilitated each meeting and the Committee developed an
                    environmental management program for the Southern Watershed Area through
                    a consensus-building process.


                 C. Issue Identification


                       The first step in the process of issue identification was the development
                    and dissemination of a written survey to all members of the Local Government
                    Advisory Committee. The survey was designed to obtain local government
                    staff views on current projects in the Southern Watershed, data gaps and
                    other impediments to developing a management plan, and critical watershed
                    problems or concerns. See Appendix C for contents of survey.

                       Based on the survey responses, the Committee decided to develop
                    priorities for responses to three main issues: critical watershed problems,
                    impediments to a management plan, and research and data needs.                A
                    compilation of the responses to these questions can be found in Appendix D.
                    To assist in developing watershed priorities, the Committee identified the
                    multiple uses of the waterbodies and subwatersheds for the North Landing,
                    Northwest and Back Bay. See Appendix E for a listing of these uses. To
                    develop a better understanding of existing and proposed land uses for the
                    Watershed, the land use maps of each city were merged (See Appendix F).
                    By merging the land use maps of each locality, the Committee members were
                    able to work on a plan using a vision of shared resources reflected in the new
                    ma*p.


             Ill. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES


                 A. Mission


                       The first priority for the Committee was to develop a mission statement for
                    the Southern Watershed Area Management Program. The following mission
                    statement was developed through consensus of the Committee members:

                       Natural resources, sensitive lands, and water supplies of the Southern
                    Watersheds of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake should be protected and
                    enhanced.



                                                       4









                        The following Watershed priorities were identified by the Local Government
                     Advisory Committee:

                     1. Develop common goals and a shared vision for the Southern Watershed
                        Area.


                     2. Provide for multiple uses of waterways and watersheds.

                     3. Manage nonpoint sources of pollution.

                     4. Number of agencies and interests in Southern Watersheds illustrates the
                        need for an on-going forum or clearinghouse for information.

                     5. Manage competing uses in watershed.

                     6. Identify and reduce data gaps to help further the mission statement.

                 B.  Water Quality

                        Throughout the process, the Local Government Advisory Committee
                     established water quality as the primary focus of research for the project. The
                     Committee collected data and materials on existing water quality conditions
                     and has attempted to gain an accurate characterization of current conditions
                     in the Northwest River, Back Bay and the North Landing River. Water quality
                     issues which dominated the discussions of the Committee included: 1)
                     Existing water quality conditions of Back Bay, the Northwest and North
                     Landing Rivers; 2) Priorities and limitations of current water quality monitoring
                     programs; and 3) Effects of nonpoint source pollution on water quality of the
                     Southern Watershed. The Committee identified the following two major
                     problems with water quality data and research:

                     1.' Lack of clearly defined water quality data to disseminate to planners,
                        decision makers and the public; and

                     2. Lack of a vehicle through which to communicate this data.

                        To address these problems, the Committee conducted a preliminary
                     analysis of current water quality monitoring programs for the following: 1)
                     number of station 's on waterbodies in Southern Watershed; 2) frequency and
                     parameters of sampling; 3) monitoring protocols and 4) agencies responsible
                     for collecting data.   For a representative discussion of current and past
                     monitoring programs in the Southern Watershed, particularly the ambient
                     water quality monitoring program of the Department of Environmental Quality
                     and studies specifically in Back Bay, see Appendix J.



                                                         5









                       Water quality research conducted by the Committee reveals that the most
                    obvious water quality problems in the waterbodies of the Southern Watershed
                    are due to nonpoint source pollution and natural conditions. For more detailed
                    information on current water quality conditions in the Southern Watershed
                    based on research of the Committee, see Appendix H and for a general
                    informational guide on water quality in the Southern Watershed, see Appendix
                    K.


                       The Committee has identified particular tasks to be accomplished for
                    improving water quality monitoring in the Southern Watershed. See Appendix
                    J for this information. To address the issue of communicating information to
                    planners, decision makers and the public, the Committee has begun to develop
                    an education program. Through this education program, brochures, fact
                    sheets, workshops, etc. will provide the forum for transferring information to
                    the public.

                C.  Goals and Objectives

                       After a thorough analysis and compilation of the goals and objectives for
                    the Southern Watershed in the Comprehensive Plans of each of the localities,
                    the Committee worked to develop common goals for the Southern Watershed
                    Area.   The following goals and objectives for the Watershed reflect the
                    consensus of the Committee members:


                    Southern Watershed Area Management Program


                    Mission Statement:


                       Natural Resources, sensitive lands, and water supplies of the Southern
                    Watersheds of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake should be protected and
                    enhanced.


                    Goals and Objectives:

                    Goal A. Water Quality Should Be Protected and Enhanced for Water Supplies
                             and Natural Resources Conservation.


                       Objectives:

                       1 .   Protection of water quality for water supply of the Northwest River
                             Treatment Plant.


                       2.    Achieve improved water quality, stormwater management control
                             and flood control through application of local, state and federal
                             programs and initiatives.


                                                       6









                       3.    Study the potential for educational programs for water quality
                             monitoring.

                       4.    Educate citizens, the development community and public officials on
                             the importance of water quality issues including water supply and
                             stormwater.


                    Goal B.  Preserve Open Lands to Help Protect and Enhance Water Quality.

                       Objectives:

                       1 .   Preserve critical edge habitat areas, marshes and swamps by
                             application of preservation zoning, conservation easements and any
                             other appropriate development incentives.

                       2.    Educate citizens, the development community and public officials on
                             the importance of open space, agricultural and forested lands and
                             other natural resources.


                    Goal C.  Ensure Compatibility of Recreational Activities and Commerce with
                             Natural Resource Protection.


                       Objectives:

                       1 .   Acquire and develop adequate public and private park land and open
                             space that compliments the existing park system.

                       2.    Encourage     appropriate   management      techniques    (such     as
                             conservation and water wise landscaping, etc.) for public and private
                             recreational facilities for water quality and habitat protection.

                       3.    Coordinate activities and management of intracoastal waterways with
                             natural resource and water quality protection.

                       4.    Coordinate local activities with state and federal programs such as
                             the North Landing Public Access Program and the North Landing
                             River Conservation Program, etc.

                    Note:    For the following goals and objectives, "Southern Watersheds" will
                             be defined as the Southern Rural Area for Virginia Beach and the
                             Rural Overlay District for Chesapeake. It does not include the entire
                             Southern Watershed Area.


                    Goal D.  The Character of the Southern Watershed Should Remain Rural While
                             Providing for Rural Residential Development.


                                                       7                   Revised May 17, 1995









                       Objectives:

                       1     Infrastructure improvements within the Southern Watershed should
                             represent those necessary to support a rural area, should be
                             consistent with local planning policies, and should minimize the
                             increase in impervious surface that prevents groundwater recharge
                             and increases salt water intrusion.


                       2.    Institute good land use management practices and monitoring of land
                             use activities.


                       3.    Demand created by development should not exceed supply provided
                             by rural infrastructure; development should be consistent with local
                             planning policies.

                    Goal E.  Agricultural and Forestal Activities in the Southern Watershed Should
                             Be Sustained and Encouraged.

                       Objectives:

                       1 .   Promote and encourage the preservation of agricultural and forestal
                             lands.


                       2.    Promote agricultural activities and direct services to agriculture
                             support services and infrastructure.

                       3.    Support programs that provide practical research-based information
                             and training regarding environmentally sound and cost-effective
                             horticultural, agricultural and forestal practices.

                 D. Implementation Process

                       Based on the consensus agreement on critical Watershed problems and
                    Goals and Objectives for management of the Watershed, the Committee
                    members recommended that a coordinated management framework for
                    implementing the goals and objectives be developed.          This led to the
                    development of a Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the two
                    local governments. The MOA (See Appendix I ) specifies the responsibilities
                    of the local governments and outlines the administrative framework for
                    continuing this cooperative regional planning effort. The MOA is currently
                    under administrative staff review by the two local governments. The MOA is
                    expected to receive formal consideration in the local government approval
                    process by May 1995.




                                                       8






           XV                                                                             SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS
                NEWPORT NEWS
                WILLtAMSe[URG
                 INTERNATIONAL                                                                                  RURAL AREAS
                  AIRPORT            R 17,



                                                      NASA


                                                            AIR I.RIE
                                                            BASE



                                                                                                           CHESAPFAKE gAy














                                                 HAMpTO)V ROAM


                                                                                    NAVAL eASE
                                                                                       NORFOLK                                       CREEK
                                                                                                                             I\-, IIAOUS USE                                PORT STORY
                                                                                                       TTL CREEK R           L',
                                                                                                                                   S14         DR
                                                                                                                  NOW"
                                                                         m                                        im         AL




                                                      _RH FINY



                                                                                                                                                                                  RD
                                                                                                     -264



                                                                                                                                                                                                   CAMP
                                                                                                                                                                                                   PEN
                                                                                                                k                            #%      aREEN
                                                                                                                                                                f, 64

                                                                                                                                                                                          PNI E





                                                              DEEP                                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                                                                             $EACH                            CA
                                                                                                                                                                     raiRTHOUSE




                                                                                                                           A14T   E@,,'


                                                                                               GREAT
                                                                                               efADGE









                      GR@AT DISMAL SWAMP










            IV. RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS


                    The Local Government Advisory Committee identified and prioritized technical
                information needs to support an improved environmental management program
                for the Southern Watershed Area. Based on the preliminary identification of
                resource management issues in the survey responses as well as Watershed
                priorities developed through meeting discussions, the need for and focus of
                additional technical studies became apparent. The following research or data
                needs were identified by the Committee:

                    1. Explore opportunities for additional water quality monitoring.

                    2. Encourage compatibility of data.

                    3. Review of existing data sets to identify data gaps and inconsistencies.

                    4. Explore opportunity for a Natural Inventory, Soils Survey and update to
                       floodplain maps for the City of Chesapeake.

                    Preliminary scopes of work have been prepared to correspond to identified
                technical needs to support a management program and priorities identified for the
                Watershed. The preliminary scopes of work developed to address technical
                needs identified by the Committee are as follows:

                    See Appendix J for detailed Scopes of Work.

                    1. Water Quality Issues: The Committee identified the need for more research
                       and analysis of current water quality monitoring programs as well as the
                       need to develop a program to address any gaps in those programs. Tasks
                       include:


                       0   Establish a Water Quality Task Force.

                       0   Prepare synthesis of existing water quality information.

                       0   Design sampling program to address identified inadequacies in current
                           programs.


                           Develop sampling protocol for stormwater monitoring.

                       ï¿½   Coordinate stormwater monitoring program with NPDES program in
                           two cities and FWS in Back Bay.

                       ï¿½   Make recommendations for water-body specific water quality
                           standards if appropriate.


                                                      9                   Revised May 17, 1995









                         0  Develop Water Quality Models for three primary waterbodies in
                            Southern Watershed.


                         0  Provide reports on data synthesis and evaluation, etc.

                    2.   Coo rd ination/Interaction between State and Federal Agencies and Local
                         Governments:     Based on the identified need for more and better
                         communication between agencies with activities in the Southern
                         Watershed Area, the following tasks were developed:

                         ï¿½  Hold annual meetings between all state, federal and local agencies
                            with projects or interests in Southern Watershed Area.

                         ï¿½  Design and disseminate survey to collect information on each agency's
                            projects, available data and other resources.

                         ï¿½  HRPDC will serve as a clearinghouse for information on projects and
                            data for Southern Watershed Area.


                         ï¿½  Produce and distribute fact sheets and information brochures on water
                            quality   and other natural resource information pertaining to the
                            Southern Watershed.


                    3. Educational Program for Local Water Quality Monitoring:

                            The Committee identified the need for enhanced water quality
                         monitoring of the waterbodies of the Southern Watershed through an
                         educational program for school children. The following tasks have been
                         specified:

                         0  Design an administrative framework for an educational monitoring
                            program.

                         0  Implement a pilot project in one school for each locality.

                         0  Expand educational programs to other schools as well as workshops,
                            brochures and pamphlets to enhance the program.

                         0  Coordinate educational program with existing programs such as "Clean
                            the Bay Days" and "National Coastal Cleanup" activities.

                    4.   Technical Studies for the City of Chesapeake: The following technical
                         studies were identified by the Committee:

                         0  Natural Area Inventory for the City of Chesapeake.

                         9  Update to the City of Chesapeake's soil survey and floodplain maps.

                                                       10











             V. EDUCATION


                    An integral part of the SWAMP Project is the education of public officials and
                 citizens on the issues, priorities, and importance of natural resources in the
                 Southern Watershed Region. As a part of the education component, a fact sheet
                 and brochure have been developed to provide information to the public on both
                 the SWAMP process and project and on water quality conditions in the Southern
                 Watersheds of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. The first fact sheet and brochure
                 developed are included in Appendix K.

                    Other educational projects to be undertaken in the future by the Committee
                 if funding is available include the development of an educational water monitoring
                 program through the school system; future workshops and literature on issues in
                 the Southern Watershed; and reports to document the water quality data
                 synthesis and evaluation.      The efforts of the Committee to expand the
                 educational program for SWAMP is critical to ensure that local officials and
                 citizens recognize the need for management programs to protect both the natural
                 resources of the Watershed and the public water supply of the Northwest River.



             VI. CONCLUSION


                    The initial objectives for the Southern Watershed Area Management Program
                 have been met by the Local Government Advisory Committee's efforts over the
                 past year and half. A coordinated environmental management program for the
                 Southern Watershed has been established. Goals and Objectives for managing
                 the area have been developed through consensus of the Committee representing
                 the two local governments. Priorities, issues and needs for future technical
                 studies have been identified and an instrument for implementing this cooperative
                 regional planning effort has been designed. Through the Draft Memorandum of
                 Agreement between the two local governments, a momentum toward a
                 coordinated and consistent management approach has been initiated.

                    The future of SWAMP lies in the continuation and expansion of the
                 cooperation and initiative exhibited by the Local Government Advisory Committee
                 for SWAMP.       Early on in the process, the representatives of the two local
                 governments on the Committee came to recognize the common interests and
                 shared goals of the two cities for the Southern Watershed Area. After final
                 development of consensus among the Local Government Committee members,
                 the project was expanded to include state and federal agencies with interests or
                 projects in the Southern Watersheds of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.

                    The final meeting on March 23, 1995, was the beginning of a broader,
                 cooperative initiative among local policy makers, and state and federal agency
                 technical resource personnel. As testimony to the success of the initial SWAMP


                                                       11









                project and to the need for a more coordinated and integrated mechanism
                between the organizations present, it was decided that annual meetings would
                be held for information exchange. Another conclusion of the meeting was the
                decision to begin a program to collect and exchange information on activities,
                programs or data resources in the Southern Watershed. HRPDC agreed to serve
                as a clearinghouse for this information and provide it to all participants.

                    It appears that the cooperative planning and environmental management
                process begun through the SWAMP project will continue and is likely to result in
                significant future success. The SWAMP project has created an environment of
                open communication and support between the staffs of the two local
                governments. It has increased not only communication between the two local
                governments but among departments within each local government and more
                broadly with state and federal agencies. This project can serve as a model for
                other cooperative regional planning efforts in the nation.



































                                                     12




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                    APPENDIX A
          LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (LGAC)--SWAMP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I













                          LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                  SOUTHERN WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM


           Mr. Brent Nielson, Chesapeake Planning Dept.

           Mr. Robert J. Scott, Virginia Beach Planning Dept.

           Mr. John O'Connor, Chesapeake Public Works/Engineering Dept.

           Mr. Ralph Smith, Virginia Beach Public Works Dept.

           Mr. D. Ray Stout, Chesapeake Public Works/Engineering Dept.

           Mr. John Herzke, Virginia Beach Public Works Dept.

           Mr. Amar Dwarkanath, Chesapeake Public Utilities Dept.

           Mr. Clarence 0. Warnstaff, Virginia Beach Public Utilities Dept.

           Mr. Louis E. Cullipher, Virginia Beach Dept. of Agriculture.

           Mr. Clay Bernick, Virginia Beach Environmental Mangagement Center,
           Dept. of Planning.

           Ms. Jaleh Pett, Chesapeake Planning Dept.

           Ms. Barbara Howe, Virginia Beach Planning Dept.

           Mr. Mark Johnson, Virginia Beach Public works Dept.

           Mr. Frank Sanders, Chesapeake Public Utilities Dept.

           Mr. Bob Pilch, Chesapeake Dept. of Agriculture.

           Mr. Bartley Tuthill, Virginia Beach Dept. of Agriculture

           Mr. Tom Pauls, Virginia Beach Planning Dept.

           Ms. Julie Bright, Department of Conservation and Recreation,
           Virginia Dare Soil and Conservation District














                                          14




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                     APPENDIX B
I               LGAC MEETING SUMMARIES--SWAMP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I







       HAMPTONRQADS DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN                                 BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
       PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                       ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY


                  MEMORANDUM #94-57                                                                              March 15, 1994


                  TO: Persons Noted Below
                  BY: John M. Carlock, Director of Physic a d Env rone

                  RE: Meeting Notes - SWAMP Meeting - February 24, 1994

                            The Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern
                  Watershed Special Area Management Plan" Project (SWAMP) met on February 24,
                  1994.              This memorandum summarizes the discussion and the project direction
                  agreed to at the meeting. It follows the Meeting Agenda.

                            For your information, HRPDC has discussed the project in detail with DEQ staff.
                  As indicated at the meeting, a time extension to December 31, 1994 will be requested
                  for this project. Also, based on discussions with DEQ, it will be necessary to amend
                  the Scope of Work, including obtaining NOAA approval, for the change of project
                  direction indicated below. HRPDC staff is proceeding to develop the necessary
                  documentation.


                  PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW


                            HRPDC staff provided an overview and background to the project. It was
                  indicated that the SWAMP Project is receiving grant support through the Virginia
                  Coastal Resources Management Program. (The Scope of Work for the project was
                  included with the Agenda for the meeting.) The study area for the project is the
                  Southern Watersheds of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach to include Back Bay and the
                  North Landing and Northwest Rivers. The purpose of the project is to facilitate a
                  consensus among government and private entities on management goals, program
                  needs and technical research needs for these watersheds. It was designed to build
                  upon the work conducted by the HRPDC during the last several years with financial
                  assistance from the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. Also, it was to provide a
                  transition between that work and a potential Section 309 Coastal Zone Enhancements
                  Project, which had been proposed, but not funded, in 1992.


                  LINKAGES TO OTHER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS


                            Other projects and activities affecting this Watershed, which are presently
                  underway, were discussed. They include:
                                                                                @n           IV @roln

















                                                               HEADOUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 - (804) 420-8300
                                                                PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 - (804) 728-2067
                                                                                  16








                   0      EPA Habitat Demonstration Project which includes a Department of
                          Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage demonstration
                          project on Phragmites control and the Virginia Beach Workshop in
                          November 1993.       Participants include EPA, the two Cities, DEQ
                          (VCRMP), DCR - DNH, Fish and Wildlife Service, SAVE, and HRPDC.
                          This is a loose coalition and has no basic funding. It meets sporadically
                          on the second Thursday of each month.

                   0      Back Bay/North Landing/Northwest Focal Area Committee, which
                          operates under the auspices of the Department of Game and Inland
                          Fisheries and the Joint Venture Board. It includes representatives of
                          DCR-DNH, SAVE, the Cities, Sierra Club, DGIF, FWS, State Parks, The
                          Nature Conservancy, and HRPDC. It is coordinated through the Back Bay
                          Restoration Foundation. Its focus is to increase wetlands preservation in
                          the Watershed in a manner consistent with the North American
                          Waterfowl Management Plan.

                   0      North Landing River Public Access and Visual Resource Assessment
                          Project. This is'a VCRMP funded effort by DCR Divisions of Planning and
                          Recreation Resources and Natural Heritage. It will produce a public
                          access plan, which is to be completed in Spring 1994.

                   0      Virginia Beach Southern Area Plan. This city project is presently being
                          considered by the Planning Commission after referral from City Council.

                   0      Virginia Beach "Work Group".        This resulted from the November
                          Workshop and includes elected and appointed City officials and private
                          sector representatives - environmental and agriculture. Working quietly.
                          it is attempting to develop a "Vision for the Watershed." It is looking at
                          agricultural land banking and attempting to find funds to support that.

                   o      SAVE has obtained funding from the World Wildlife Fund for educational
                          activities concerning Purchase of Development Rights.

                   0      USGS studies for both DCR-DNH and HRPDC. These studies are looking
                          at the shallow ground water/surface water interface and the impact of
                          borrow pits, respectively.

                   0      DCR-DNH is seeking funds from EPA for an expanded Natural Heritage
                          Inventory in Chesapeake.

                   0      Other activities include future implementation activities associated with
                          APES, Southeastern Expressway and land acquisition by The Nature
                          Conservancy and others.



                                                       17








                   As indicated in the overview, one of the purposes of this project was to attempt
            to coordinate the various ongoing projects to ensure that they were not duplicative and
            that they were supportive of each other.


            LOCAL GOVERNMENT INPUT ON PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS


                   The Committee discussed options for this project, with respect to the
            appropriate role of the project focusing on local government needs. Specifically, what
            could this project accomplish that would facilitate enhanced local government efforts
            in the Watershed?


                   A variety of issues, being faced by the two localities, were discussed. They
            include:


                   0      Septic tank regulation in the Watershed, especially in the watershed of
                          the Chesapeake Water Supply on the Northwest River.

                   0      Stormwater Criteria being developed by the state and federal agencies.
                          How can/should they be incorporated into watershed management plans
                          and ordinances? This was noted as critical because the criteria were not
                          yet available.

                   0      The most critical element of the Watershed, as least insofar as
                          Chesapeake is concerned, is protection of the City's water supply.

                   0      The policy commitment to watershed management was questioned in
                          light of competing demands for activities in the Watershed.

                   0      Downstream relations were a particularly thorny issue in light of the Lake
                          Gaston situation.


                   0      Management efforts could be sold on the basis of cost savings to the
                          City(ies). Prior to that, however, it is necessary to define a current or
                          future problem. Absent that, the need for new or enhanced management
                          efforts is not apparent.

                   0      If the HRPDC project were to institute an expanded consensus building
                          effort at this juncture, it could conflict with and potentially have an
                          adverse impact on other ongoing local government activities.

                   After further discussion, the following project activities were identified as of the
            highest priority. They need to be completed prior to further consensus building or
            educational efforts.





                                                         18








                   1      Define the problems in the watershed in specific terms. This problem
                          definition should address both current and projected problems or potential
                          problems.

                          a.     Using available data, HRPDC will examine current water quality
                                 conditions in the Watershed. This synthesis will address surface
                                 and ground water quantity and quality. (If available, the USGS
                                 activities in the watershed for both HRPDC and DCR-DNH will be
                                 used.)

                          b.     The localities will develop and provide development scenario
                                 information to HRPDC.         This will encompass a range of
                                 alternatives including likely development, build-out and no
                                 additional development.

                          C,     HRPDC will analyze the impact of these alternatives from both
                                 environmental and socioeconomic perspectives.

                   2.     HRPDC, in cooperation with local staff, will define, based on current local
                          plans, ordinances, and management programs the current watershed
                          goals and conflicts therein. This will be an expanded and in depth update
                          of the analysis conducted earlier by HRPDC for the APES Program.

                   3.     HRPDC, in cooperation with local staff, will evaluate, based on current
                          local plans, ordinances, and management programs, the sufficiency of
                          existing management programs to address problems identified in #1
                          above.


                   4.     HRPDC, in cooperation with local staff, will determine education and
                          information needs for local government policy officials to address
                          management issues identified in the previous items.             Appropriate
                          materials will then be developed.


            OTHER MATTERS OF CONCERN


                   The Committee agreed to meet on an as needed basis at this point, pending
            institution/completion of some of the work activities outlined above.

                   The Committee endorsed HRPDC submitting a continuation grant proposal to
            DEQ(VCRMP) so that this effort may continue through 1995. That proposal has been
            submitted, based on assumptions about the time extension and scope amendment,
            noted above.







                                                        19








                 it was agreed that Mr. Bob Pilch, Chesapeake Agriculture, and Ms. Julie Bright,
           Virginia Dare SWCD, would be added to the Committee.

           JMC:fh


           ADDRESSEES
           Mr. Brent Neilson (CH)
           Mr. Robert Scott (VB)
           Mr. John O'Conner (CH)
           Mr. Ralph Smith (VB)
           Mr. Ray Stout (CH)*
           Mr. John Herzke (VB)
           Mr. Amar Dwarkanath (CH)*
           Mr. Clarence Warnstaff (VB)
           Mr. Louis Cullipher (VB)
           Ms. Jaleh Pett (CH)*
           Mr. Clay Bernick (VB)*
           Ms. Barbara Howe (VB)*
           Mr. Mark Johnson (VB)*
           Mr. Frank Sanders (CH)*

           *Attendees at 2/24/94 Meeting. Also in attendance, John Carlock and Todd Grissom,
           HRPDC
































                                                  20








        HAMPTION RQADS DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN - BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
       PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                         ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY

                                                                                                                    October 21, 1994


                  MEMORANDUM 94-239


                  TO: Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan _* SWAM
                  BY: John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environmental Plan7dx@N@

                  RE:      SWAMP Survey and Upcoming Meeting--November 8, 1994, at 1:30 p.m.


                           This is to call a meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee for the
                  HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan" Project (SWAMP) on
                  November 8, 1994, in the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Board Room
                  at the Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia. Since the
                  previous meeting on February 24, 1994, approval for a time extension and change
                  in Scope of Work which was discussed at the meeting have been obtained.                                            HRPDC
                  staff has been collecting and analyzing existing water quality data for the area and
                  will provide this at the meeting.

                           We are enclosing a survey which should be filled out and returned by
                  November 2, 1994, to Martha Little or me. Your responses, as well as your review
                  of the enclosed goals/objectives of the APES project as documented in the CCMP, will
                  provide the starting point for our discussion. If you have any questions or concerns,
                  please give us a call at 420-8300.


                  ML:kI


                  Enclosure


                  ADDRESSEES


                  Mr.   Amar Dwarkanath (CH)                                         Mr.    John Herzke (VB)
                  Mr.   Brent Neilson (CH)                                           Ms.    Barbara Howe (VB)
                  Mr.   John O'Conner (CH)                                           Mr.    Mark Johnson (VB)
                  Ms.   Jaleh Pett (CH)                                              Mr.    Robert'Scott (VB)
                  Mr.   Bob Pilch (CH)                                               Mr.    Ralph Smith (VB)
                  Mr.   Frank Sanders (CH)                                           Mr.    Clarence Warnstaff (VB)
                  Mr.   Ray Stout (CH)                                               Ms.    Julie Bright (Virginia Dare SWCD)
                  Mr. Clay Bernick (VB)
                  Mr. Louis Cullipher (VB)



                                                               HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 - (804) 420-8300
                                                                               - H
                                                                PENINSULA OFFICE 21 ARBOUR CENTRE. 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 - (804) 728-2067










                                                     SWAMP
                                         LOCAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY



                   The HRPDC local government advisory committee for the SWAMP project met in
             late February to discuss the "Southern Watershed Area Management Plan" and the needs
             of local governments related to this project. Since the previous meeting, the HRPDC has
             been collecting and analyzing existing water quality data available for the waterbodies
             within the Southern Watersheds of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. A summary will be
             available at the next scheduled meeting to be held at 1:30 p.m. on November 8, 1994,
             at the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Board Room.

                   Objectives for the project agreed to at the previous meeting include:

                   To ensure that resource management initiatives affecting the Southern Watershed
                   of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach are coordinated and integrated.

                   To develop a local government consensus on Goals for Environmental Management
                   in the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach.

                   To develop a local government consensus on critical Watershed problems and
                   concerns in order to establish priorities for future technical studies.


                   To maintain momentum toward a coordinated management approach that was
                   developed during development of the 1992 Proposal for a Southern Watershed
                   Special Area Management Plan under Section 309 and during development of the
                   HRPDC study, Environmental Management Proaram for the Haml2ton Roads Virginia
                   Portion of the A/P Watershed.


                   To develop, if appropriate, a Proposal for development of a Southern Watershed
                   Special Area Management Plan, in accordance with the requirements of the Section
                   309 Coastal Zone Enhancements Program.


                   The following goals and objectives represent consensus opinions of the APES
             program, as documented in the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP).
             The CCMP, which is the culmination of six years of collaboration between representatives
             of nearly every group with an interest in the Albemarle-Pamlico region, is in the final
             stages of adoption. Please review these goals and management actions, keeping in mind
             that the intent of the SWAMP project is to reach a consensus on goals, objectives, and
             management plans for the Southern Watershed Areas within Virginia Beach and
             Chesapeake. They may serve as an appropriate* starting point for our discussions.

                   After reviewing the APES program goals, please take the time to respond to the
             questions in the survey so that we may use the survey responses as the basis for our next
             discussion. Please return the survey to John Carlock or Martha Little of the Hampton
             Roads Planning District Commission by November 2, 1994.



                                                        22









                                    ALBEMARLE-PAMLICO ESTUARINE STUDY
                                                       GOALS



             1      Restore, maintain or enhance water quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico region so that
                    it is fit for fish, wildlife and recreation.


                    A.     Implement a comprehensive basinwide approach to water quality
                           management.


                    B.     Reduce sediments, nutrients, and toxicants from nonpoint sources.

                    C.     Reduce pollution from point sources, such as wastewater treatment facilities
                           and industry.

                    D.     Reduce the risk of toxic contamination to aquatic life and human health.

                    E.     Evaluate indicators of environmental stress in the estuary and develop new
                           techniques to better assess water quality degradation.



             2.     Conserve and protect vital fish and wildlife habitats and maintain the natural
                    heritage of the Albemarle-Pamlico region.

                    A.     Promote regional planning to protect and restore vital habitats in the APES
                           region.

                    B.     Promote the responsible stewardship, protection, and conservation of
                           valuable natural areas in the APES region.

                    C.     Maintain, restore and enhance vital habitat functions to ensure the survival
                           of wildlife and fisheries.



             3.     Restore or maintain fisheries and provide for their long-term, sustainable use, both
                    commercial and recreational.


                    A.     Control over-fishing by developing and implementing fishery management
                           plans for all important estuarine species.

                    B.     Promote the use of best fishing practices that reduce bycatch and impacts
                           on fisheries habitats.



             4.     Promote responsible stewardship of the natural resources of the Albemarle-Pamlico
                    region.



                                                          23









                    A.     Promote local and regional planning that protects the environment and
                           allows for economic growth.

                    B.     Increase public understanding of environmental issues and citizen
                           involvement in environmental policy making.

                    C.     Ensure that students, particularly in grades K-5, are exposed to science and
                           environmental education.



             5.     Implement the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan in a way that
                    protects environmental quality while using the most cost-effective and equitable
                    strategies.

                    A.     Coordinate public agencies involved in resource management and
                           environmental protection to implement the recommendations of the CCIVIP.

                    B.     Assess the progress and success of implementing CCIVIP recommendations
                           and the status of environmental quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico region.

































                                                         24










                                                   SWAMP
                                        LOCAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY



                   From the perspective of your agency or institution, please answer the following
            questions. Please give thorough answers, using extra pages if necessary.

            1 .    What regulatory and/or research programs are you currently involved with in the
                   Southern Watershed Area?




            2.     What are the greatest impediments to developing a management plan for the
                   Southern Watershed Area? What is needed to overcome these impediments?




            3.     Describe additional data and research activities you think are necessary for the
                   development of comprehensive and/or issue specific management programs. Why?




            4.     What gaps presently exist in the management and regulation of this area within
                   your jurisdiction?




            5.     How should this consensus-building effort differ from other, past or present
                   efforts?




            6.     Describe what you see as critical watershed problems and concerns?




            7.     What land use changes have occurred in the last five years which may have an
                   impact on the SWA?











            Return to:


            Martha Little
            Hampton Roads Planning District Commission   25
            723 Woodlake Drive
            Chesapeake, Virginia 23320







       H,KMPT0N RQADS DR. AL                               IAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN   BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
       PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                           ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORISECRETARY

                                                                                                                 November 25, 1994


                MEMORANDUM #94-275


                TO: Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan - SWAMP Committee
                BY:       John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Envi;r
                RE:       Meeting--SWAMP--December 2, 1994

                          This is to call a meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee for the
                HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan" Project (SWAMP) on
                December 2, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. in the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
                Board Room at the Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia.
                This is an important meeting, so please make every effort to attend.

                          At the previous meeting on November 8, 1994, information on existing water
                quality data and its significance for SWAMP was discussed.                                                Based on this
                discussion, a packet of information for your review is enclosed.                                         Included in this
                packet is the following: an assessment of existing surface and                                        non-point source
                water quality data sources, including an explanation of the high NPS agricultural
                priority status of SWAMP waterbodies; a copy of the map from the Virginia Water
                Quality Assessment for 1994 305 (b) Report showing monitoring stations for the
                Chowan River and Dismal Swamp Basin; a copy of the Summary and
                Recommendations from Back Bay. Virginia: A Literature Review and Synthesis of
                Natural Resource Status and Trends; an excerpt from the preliminary report of the
                technical task force on BMP siting, Watershed Management Planning and Stormwater
                Water Quality Technical Criteria of the SJR 44 Subcommittee. This excerpt, which
                pertains to incorporating biological considerations into water quality and impact
                criteria, may be an appropriate element for discussion at the SWAMP committee
                meeting.

                          At the meeting on December 2, HRPDC staff will also provide a summary of
                survey responses that have been received to date and a synthesis of Southern
                Watershed Goals found in the two locality's Comprehensive Plans and other plans and
                ordinances that have been forwarded to HRPDC. Please be ready to begin prioritizing
                goals and objectives at the meeting. If you have any questions or concerns, please
                do not hesitate to call Martha Little or me.


                ML/kI


                Enclosures

                                                                 HEADOUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 (804) 420-8300
                                                                  PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669.(804) 728-2067
                                                                                26










          Memorandum #94-275
          November 25, 1994
          Page 2




          ADDRESSES


          Mr.  Amar Dwarkanath (CH)
          Mr.  Brent Neilson (CH)
          Mr. John O'Conner (CH)
          Ms.  Jaleh Pett (CH)
          Mr.  Bob Pilch (CH)
          Mr.  Frank Sanders (CH)
          Mr.  Ray Stout (CH)
          Mr.  Clay Bernick (VB)
          Mr.  Louis Cullipher (VB)
          Mr.  John Herzke (VB)
          Ms.  Barbara Howe (VB)
          Mr.  Mark Johnson (VB)
          Mr.  Robert Scott (VB)
          Mr.  Ralph Smith (VB)
          Mr.  Clarence Warnstaff (VB)
          Ms.  Julie Bright (Virginia Dare SWCD)


























                                                27







        HAMPTQNJ@QADS DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN                                           BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
        PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                                    ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORISECRETARY




                   MEMORANDUM #94-284                                                                               December 7, 1994


                   TO: Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan--SWAMP Committee

                   BY:       John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environmental PI ni

                   RE:       Meeting Notes-SWAMP Meeting-December 2, 1994


                             The Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern
                   Watershed Special Area Management Plan" Project (SWAMP) met on December 2,
                   1994. This memorandum summarizes the discussion and the project direction agreed
                   to at the meeting.

                             Attendance at the meeting included Martha Little and Jeryl Rose from the
                   HRPDC staff, Clay Bernick, Barbara Howe and Louis Cullipher from the City of Virginia
                   Beach, and Jaleh Pett and Frank Sanders from the City of Chesapeake. Staff would
                   like Committee members, especially those who have been unable to attend the
                   meetings to please review and comment on enclosed information.


                   WATER QUALITY


                             HRPDC staff began the meeting with an overview of the water quality reports
                   and data which had beer, mailed to the Committee and solicited any comments from
                   the group *on this topic. The Committee discussed the priorities and limitations of
                   existing water quality data and agreed that more information was needed to
                   understand the present state of water quality in the waterbodies of the Southern
                   Watersheds. It was suggested that correspondence with the parties responsible for
                   developing water quality data in the Virgi!]ia Water Quality Assessment for 1992 and
                   1994 305 (b) Report to EPA and Congress, the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution
                   Watershed Assessment Report and Back Bay, Virginia: A Literature Review and
                   Synthesis of Natural Resource Status and Trends be developed. The Committee
                   suggested that a letter requesting clarification of the data development in these reports
                   might be helpful. HRPDC staff is exploring the option of a meeting with the staff of
                   DEQ, DCR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff involved in the preparation of these
                   reports in order to exchange more information on water quality data interpretations.
                                                                                                                               an































































                                                                       HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320    (804) 420-8300
                                                                        PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669  (804) 728-2067
                                                                                        28








                    There was general agreement among the Committee members that more
             information on water quality monitoring such as frequency of monitoring, monitoring
             protocols and who is responsible for the different types of monitoring be collected and
             summarized. The Committee members identified two major problems with water
             quality data and research: The first is a lack of clearly defined data to disseminate to
             planners, decision makers and the public; the second is a lack of a vehicle through
             which to communicate this data.


             SURVEY RESPONSES-PRIORITIZATION OF PROBLEMS, IMPEDIMENTS, STUDY
             NEEDS


                    HRPDC staff presented a listing of the responses collected from the surveys on
             watershed priorities. Utilizing flip charts and other facilitation techniques, HRPDC staff
             worked with the Committee to develop priorities in response to three questions from
             the survey.    Appendix A shows the survey questions and responses from the
             Committee and how the Committee chose to prioritize these responses at the meeting.
             The Committee then decided that in order to get a better understanding of the multiple
             uses of each waterbody, they would develop a list of existing uses both of the
             waterbody and watershed for the North Landing, Northwest and Back Bay areas.
             Appendix B shows the list of current uses generated by the Committee.

                    After a lengthy discussion on the best way to approach deciding future goals
             for the watershed that would not conflict with goals already developed       through the
             Comprehensive Planning process for each locality, the Committee decided that a
             review and overlay of land use maps would be an essential element in the decision
             making process. It was clear from the discussion that the two localities had different
             approaches to land use planning within each watershed. In Virginia Beach, for
             example, there are three transition areas with proposed land uses differing by degrees
             of intensity in each, just within the North Landing watershed.

                    The consensus of the Committee was that prior to the next meeting, each
             locality would provide HRPDC with land use maps showing existing and proposed land
             use conditions within the watershed. The Committee also suggested that HRPDC staff
             attempt to obtain land use information from a GIS map developed for the Southeast
             Expressway project and synthesize the information at the next meeting.                 The
             Committee agreed that having the land use maps would give the group a clearer
             picture of existing and proposed land uses within the Watershed which would lead to
             an understanding of future needs for the area.

             GOALS SYNTHESIS


                    HRPDC staff presented a synthesis of goals for the Southern Watershed
             compiled from the Comprehensive Plans for each locality. The Committee discussed
             the goals after a brief review and commented on the similarity between many of them.
             The Committee agreed to review the goals in detail and develop ideas for developing


                                                         29








            common goals which would reflect the interests of both locality's Comprehensive
            Plans and provide for the future needs of the southern watershed from the perspective
            of the SWAMP Committee. This discussion will be continued at the next meeting. A
            result of this dialogue will also be the identification of the impediments to
            implementation of these goals.


            FUTURE MEETINGS


                   It was decided that the Committee needed to meet again before the meeting
            with the other state and federal resource agencies takes place. The next meeting of
            the Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern Watershed Area
            Management Plan" project (SWAMP) has been scheduled for January 12, 1995.


            ML:fh


            Attachments


            Southern Watershed - SWAMP Committee


                   Brent Nielson, CH
                   Robert J. Scott, VB
                   John O'Connor, CH
                   Ralph Smith, VB
                   D. Ray Stout. CH
                   John Herzke, V13
                   Amar Dwarkanath, CH
                   Clarence 0. Warnstaff, V13
                   Louis E. Cullipher, V13
                   Clay Bernick, V13
                   Jaleh Pett, VB
                   Barbara Howe, V13
                   Mark Johnson, VB
                   Frank Sanders, CH
                   Bob Pilch, CH
                   Julie Bright, DCR













                                                     30










                                             APPENDIX A


           CRITICAL WATERSHED PROBLEMS


           #6.    Describe what you see as critical watershed problems and concerns?

                 The following is a list of all the responses to question #6 of the survey received
                 by HRPDC:

                 0      Preservation of drinking water supply;

                 0      Chemical Spills;

                 0      Protection of environmentally sensitive resources;

                 0      Lack of interest from Chesapeake and Virginia Beach communities;

                 0      Improper Sewage Discharges;

                 0      Further use of BMPs for Development and Agriculture;

                 0      Impervious covering of watershed;

                 0      Urban NPS runoff impacts to habitat areas;

                 0      Inspection and enforcement of regulations;

                 0      Need land -use patterns that protect Natural Resources;

                 0      Maintenance of Drainage Systems;

                 o      Effectiveness of in-field management practices.

                 During discussions at the meeting on December 2, 1994, the following
                 responses were added to the previous list.

                 0      Lack of public access

                 0      No consensus among diverse groups

                 0      Diverse expectations from various interest groups

                 0      Lack of Unified Focus


                 0      Multiple uses of waterways


                                                   31









                              CRITICAL WATERSHED PROBLEMS--PRIORITIES



           The Committee decided that the three most important watershed problems were:

                  The #1 priority is the need for land use management tools which is essentially
                  a combination of three previous responses--1)          Impervious covering of
                  watershed; 2) Urban/Suburban land conversion; 3) Need land-use patterns that
                  protect natural resources.

                  The #2 priority is the need for technical ways to handlelimprove water quality
                  which in essence combines the following two previous responses: 1) Further
                  use of BIVIP's for development and agriculture and 2) Maintenance of drainage
                  systems.

                  The #3 priority is the multiple uses of waterways /watersheds. This response
                  led to the decision of the Committee to list all existing uses of waterways and
                  the watershed. This response also reflected the group's belief that a lack of
                  unified focus in management and future goals is an impediment to developing
                  a management plan.





























                                                     32









                                  IMPEDIMENTS TO MANAGEMENT PLAN



            #2      What are the greatest impediments to developing a management plan for the
                    Southern Watershed Area?


                    The following is a list of the responses to question #2 of the survey.

                    0    Need for more personnel and equipment

                    0    Lack of political guidance, leadership vision

                    0    Number of Agencies and interests

                    0    Conflicting objectives

                    0    Lack of Water Quality "Causal" information

                    0    Communications; coordination; duplication of effort--need on-going forum
                         of government, citizens and interest groups

                    0    Lack of education and willingness to reach compromise

                    0    Multiple uses in watershed




            The Committee chose the following three impediments as the top priorities for the
            SWA:


                    1. Lack of unified focus or conflicting objectives

                    2. Number of Agencies and interests--need for on-going forum

                    3. Multiple uses in Watershed



            As the exercise continued it was evident to the Committee that the boundary between
            priorities of impediments and critical watershed problems became less clear. The
            Committee decided to discuss and prioritize the survey responses to research and data
            needs at the next meeting.







                                                      33










                                                APPENDIX B



                                              MULTIPLE USES



            NORTHWEST WATERWAY:                                 WATERSHED:


            Water Supply                                        Agriculture

            Recreation                                          Forestry

            Drainage                                            Recreation

            Habitat                                             Military

            Wastewater Assimilation                             Residential Development

            Flood Control                                       Limited Commercial Dev.


                                                                Conservation/Open Space




            BACK BAY WATERWAY:                                  WATERSHED:


            Recreation                                          Habitat/Conservation


            Habitat                                             Recreation/Tourism


            Commercial Fishing                                  Agriculture

            Flood Con trol                                      Urban Residential


            Drainage                                            Rural Residential

            Wastewater Assimilation                             Commercial Development

                                                                Military









                                                     34









                                         MULTIPLE USES CONT'D



            NORTH LANDING WATERWAY:                             WATERSHED:


            Recreation                                          Military

            Habitat                                             Urban Residential


            Drainage                                            Agriculture

            Transportation                                      Forestry

            Flood Control                                       Conservation/Open Space



            NORTH LANDING WATERWAY:                              WATERHSED:



            Wastewater Assimilation                             Recreation


                                                                Commercial Development


                                                                Borrow Pits


                                                                Industrial Development
                                                                Rural Residential


                                                                Bridge Crossings



















                                                      35








       HAMPTON"ROADS DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN - BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
       PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                        ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY


                                                                                                               December 22, 1994



                 MEMORANDUM #94-298


                 TO: Southern Watershed Speci                    al Area Management Plan--SWAMP Committee

                 BY: John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environmentavi4nnin
                 RE: Meeting Agenda--January 12, 1994                                                   /,@@             C

                           This is to call a meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee for the
                 HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan" (SWAMP) on January
                 12, 1994, at 9:30 a.m. at the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Board
                 Room at the Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia.

                           The Agenda for the meeting will be:

                           1.   WATER QUALITY DISCUSSION:                                 Staff     from the Department of
                                Environmental Quality, Department of Conservation and Recreation and U.S.
                                Fish and Wildlife Service will give brief presentations on water quality data
                                collection and documentation in the Virainia Water Quality Assessment
                                Report, Virginia Nonpoint Sourpe Pollution Watershed Assessment Report,
                                and Back Bay. Virginia: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Natural
                                Resource Status and Trends. After the presentations there will be time
                                allotted for a question and answer session and then a brief recess so that
                                the Agency staff may leave before the regular meeting resumes.

                          II.   REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON GOALS: As we discussed at
                                the previous meeting and in the most recent memorandum, the Committee
                                members should be reviewing the list of goals developed from the
                                Comprehensive Plans of each locality which was distributed at the meeting.
                                The Committee members should be prepared to present ideas for common
                                goals for the SWAMP Committee to accept. We will work on refining these
                                at the meeting.



                         Ill.   REVIEW OF PRIORITIES:. At the previous meeting, three top priorities for
                                "Critical Watershed Problems" and "Impediments to Development of a
                                                                                                                         9
                                                                                                                     ltc@,@















                                Management Plan" were selected from the survey responses of the


                                                               HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 - (804) 420-8300
                                                                PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE. 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669. (804) 728-2067


                                                                              36










            Memorandum #94-298
            December 27, 1994
            Page 2


                      Committee. We will review and finalize each of these for the final report
                      and generate the top priorities for "Data and Research Needs" as well.

                IV.   REVIEW OF LAND USE MAPS: The Committee will review the existing land
                      use maps for the Southern Watersheds prepared by the localities and GIS
                      developed maps with natural resource data from the Department of Game
                      and Inland Fisheries. This review will provide a forum for discussion of
                      future needs of the southern watersheds and lead to identification of
                      impediments to implementing the goals developed by the Committee.

                  V.  CONCLUSION: We will discuss plans and schedule for the next meeting.
                      This will include optional approaches to the packaging of this material for
                      presentation to and consideration by local officials.

                   If you have any questions, need further information, or would like to discuss
            any of the above, please do not hesitate to call.


            ML/kI


            Distribution List:


            Mr. Amar Dwarkanath (CH)
            Mr. Brent Neilson (CH)
            Mr. John O'Conner (CH)
            Ms. Jaleh Pett (CH)
            Mr. Bob Pilch (CH)
            Mr. Frank Sanders (CH)
            Mr. Ray Stout (CH)
            Mr. Clay Bernick (VB)
            Mr. Louis Cullipher (VB)
            Mr. John Herzke (VB)
            Ms. Barbara Howe (VB)
            Mr. Mark Johnson (VB)
            Mr. Robert Scott (VB)
            Mr. Ralph Smith (VB)
            Mr. Clarence Warnstaff (VB)
            Ms. Julie Bright (Virginia Dare SWCD)






                                                     37








        HAMPTON RQADS                                    DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN      BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
        PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                                  ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOFUSECRETARY

                                                                                                                             January 19, 1995


                  MEMORANDUM #95-15


                  TO: Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan--SWAMP Committee

                  BY:        John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environmental Planning

                  RE:        Next Meeting - SWAMP - January 31, 1995



                             This is to call a meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee for the
                  HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan" (SWAMP) on January
                  31, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. in the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Board
                  Room at the Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia.

                             This is to remind the SWAMP Committee members to develop Objectives for
                  each of the Goals developed at the previous meeting. We will be ready to finalize
                  these at the next meeting.

                             The following is a summary of the previous SWAMP meeting held on January
                  12, 1995:


                             The Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern
                  Watershed Special Area Management Plan" project (SWAMP) met on January 12,
                  1995 at 9:30 a.m. Speakers at the meeting included Michelle Fults and Roger
                  Everton from the Tidewater Regional Office, Department of Environmental Quality;
                  Mark Bennett, Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Stephen Zylstra and
                  John Gallegos from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Members of the Committee
                  that attended the meeting included Jaleh Pett and Frank Sanders from the City of
                  Chesapeake; Clay Bernick, Mark Johnson, Barbara Howe, and Bart Tuthill from the
                  City of Virginia Beach; and Martha Little and Jeryl Rose from the HRPDC staff. Staff
                  would like Committee members, especially those who have been unable to attend the
                  meetings, to please review and comment on enclosed information.


                  1.         WATER QUALITY:


                             The discussion on water quality began with a presentation by Roger Everton
                  from DEQ. He gave an overview of -DEQs ambient water quality monitoring program.
                                 a @@=
                      000@



















































                  He described the monitoring which occurs in the waterbodies of SWAMP and the
                  parameters and frequency of the testing. On the Northwest River there is one


                                                                      HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE @ CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 (804) 420-8300
                                                                       PENINSULA OFFICE -HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET -SUITE 02 -HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 - (804) 728-2067
                                                                                       38










             Memorandum #95-15
             January 19, 1995
             Page 2


             monitoring station at the treatment plant which is tested on a monthly basis. The
             North Landing River has ten stations, three of which are tested monthly and seven
             which are tested on a quarterly basis. At Back Bay, DEQ has one staff monitoring
             station and eleven hybrid monitoring stations. With the stations monitored by Back
             Bay Wildlife Refuge and Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, there are a total
             of about twenty-two stations in Back Bay. He stated that citizen monitoring has
             increased and that Back Bay is part of that network.

                   Michelle Fults then discussed the STORET data system which compiles all the
             data and provides the information for the 305 (b) report. She explained both the
             internal and external uses of the STORET data and the recent changes in format of
             the 305 (b) report, including changes that will be made to the 1996 report. She
             indicated that the water quality management plans will be completed only for water
             quality limited segments of waterbodies.

                   Next, Steven Zylstra from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS)
             provided an overview of the report, Back Bay. Virainias A Literature Review and
             Syntheses of Natural Resource Status and Trends. He stated that this report gives a
             historical perspective on the changes in the Back Bay ecosystem by compiling existing
             data and research as well as historical literature regarding water quality in the Back
             Bay. He indicated that Back Bay is generally turning into more. of a freshwater
             system. Water clarity has declined due to nutrient loading and turbidity from
             agriculture and urban stormwater runoff and septic systems. Submerged Aquatic
             Vegetation (SAV) declined in the 1970's and 1980's. This was due to increased
             development which caused greater turbidity. U.S. FWS thinks that there is a
             resurgence of SAV presently. There is a current sampling program being conducted
             to test stormwater runoff after rainfall events. The results of this sampling will be
             available next summer.


                   John Gallegos, a biologist from the Back Bay Refuge, discussed the Back Bay
             Report in more detail, emphasizing that historical data and literature from before U.S.
             FWS monitoring of the area was included. He explained the current sampling
             program and the possibility of incorporating this data into the DEQ STORET data. The
             Committee asked whether testing of atmospheric contributions to the runoff was also
             included in the sampling. Mr. Gallegos said that at present this was not being tested
             f or.


                   Finally, Mark Bennett from the Department of Conservation and Recreation
             initiated his discussion with an explanation of the recent changes in the Virginia
             Nonpoint Source Assessment Report watershed system. The Hydrologic Unit,
             watershed boundaries and naming conventions have changed to make the data


                                                      39









            Memorandum #95-15
            January 19, 1995
            Page 3


            consistent with the Department of Environmental Quality data. There will also be an
            effort to include more data from localities, information on BMP efforts and nonpoint
            source controls, more erosion and sediment control tracking and improved mining
            data.


                   There was a brief discussion among the Committee members and Agency staff
            about gaps in monitoring. It was suggested that what is needed is handouts and
            publications which explain data and their significance to the public. It was also noted
            that there are many opportunities to augment the base monitoring of DEQ and DCR
            with additional studies and combine the information. By working together and
            synthesizing the data, a more comprehensive picture of water quality information will
            be created.


                   At this point there was a brief recess before the general meeting resumed.

            11.    REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON GOALS:


                   The Committee reviewed the list of goals for the Southern Watersheds which
            were   derived from the Comprehensive Plans of each locality and developed new
            common, shared goals for the SWAMP Committee. The following mission statement
            and general goals were agreed to by the Committee:

            Mission Statement:


                   Natural Resources and Sensitive Lands of the Southern Watersheds of
                   Virginia Beach and Chesapeake should be protected and enhanced.


            Goals:


            1.     Water quality should be protected and enhanced.

            2.     Preserve open lands including agriculture and forested lands to help protect and
                   enhance water quality.

            3.     Ensure compatibility of recreational activities with natural resource and water
                   quality protection.

                   For the following goals, "Southern Watersheds" will be defined as the Southern
            Rural Area for Virginia Beach and the Rural Overlay District for Chesapeake. It does
            not include the entire Southern Watershed area as defined by the SWAMP
            Committee.


                                                     40









            Memorandum #95-15
            January 19, 1995
            Page 4


            4.    The Character of the Southern Watersheds should remain rural while providing
                  for rural residential development.

            5.    Agricultural activities in the watershed should be sustained and encouraged.

            6.    Infrastructure improvements within the Southern Watershed should represent
                  those necessary to support a rural area.

                  The Committee is presently developing Objectives for each of the goals listed
            above. These will be presented and refined at the next meeting.


            111.  REVIEW OF PRIORITIES:


                  After a lengthy discussion, the Committee members decided to combine the
            two categories, "Critical Watershed Problems" and "Impediments to Development of
            a Management Plan" into the one category--" Critical Watershed Priorities." This made
            it easier to develop priorities which the Committee could agree upon.

                  The following priorities of the SWAMP Committee were agreed to by the
            Committee:


            1.    Develop common goals and a shared vision of the Southern Watershed Area.

            2.    Provide for multiple uses of waterways and watersheds.

            3.    Manage nonpoint sources of pollution.


            4.    Establish a unified focus.


            5.    Number of agencies and interests in Southern Watersheds which illustrates the
                  need for an on-going forum or clearinghouse for information.

            6.    Manage competing uses in watershed.

            7.    Reduce data gaps.

                  The following research and data needs were identified   by the Committee:

            1.    Additional water quality monitoring.

            2.    Explore opportunities for more citizen monitoring.

                                                41









            Memorandum #95-15
            January 19, 1995
            Page 5


            3.     Encourage compatibility of data.

            4.     Review existing data sets.

            5.     Explore opportunity for a Natural Area Inventory, Soils Survey, and updating
                   of floodplain maps for the City of Chesapeake.


            IV.    REVIEW OF LAND USE MAPS:


                   The Committee reviewed the Land Use Maps prepared by the HRPDC staff and
            noted  the similarities in the appearance of the areas surrounding the North Landing
            River on both sides. The Committee decided that the land use map should include the
            entire watershed rather than just the area surrounding the North Landing River.
            HRPDC staff agreed to prepare a more comprehensive land use map for the next
            meeting.


            V.     CONCLUSION:


                   The Committee agreed that one possible outcome of the SWAMP project would
            be a Memorandum of Agreement between the two localities which would outline the
            shared goals for the Southern Watersheds and provide a forum for exchange of
            information and the initiation of on-going dialogue.        Further discussion on the
            packaging of this material for local officials will continue at the next meeting. It was
            agreed that the meeting with the resource agencies will be held on February 9, 1995
            at 12:00 noon. Lunch will be provided by HRPDC staff prior to the meeting.

            ML/kl


            Distribution List:


            Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan - SWAMP Committee

            Mr.  Amar Dwarkanath (CH)                       Mr. John Herzke (VB)
            Mr.  Brent Neilson (CH)                         Ms. Barbara Howe (VB)
            Mr. John O'Conner (CH)                          Mr. Mark Johnson (VB)
            Ms.  Jaleh Pett (CH)                            Mr. Robert Scott (VB)
            Mr. Bob Pilch (CH)                              Mr. Ralph Smith (VB)
            Mr.  Frank Sanders (CH)                         Mr. Clarence Warnstaff (VB)
            Mr.  Ray Stout (CH)                             Ms. Julie Bright (Virginia Dare SWCD)
            Mr.  Clay Bernick (VB)
            Mr.  Louis Cullipher (VB)


                                                    42








        HAMPTON                            QA              DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN      BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASU ER
                                       R _D S                                                                                                                          R
        PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                                     ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORISECRETARY

                                                                                                                                  February 2, 1995



                    MEMORANDUM #95-28


                    TO: Southern Waters                    hed Area Management Program--SWAMP

                    BY:       John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environm t I Planning

                    RE:       Next Meeting--SWAMP--February 9, 1995



                    *         This is to call a meeting of the Local Government Advisory Committee for the
                    HRPDC "Southern Watershed Area Management Program" (SWAMP) on February 9,
                    1995, at 1:00 p.m. in the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Board Room
                    at the Regional Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia.

                              This is to remind all members of the Local Government Advisory Committee for
                    the HRPDC, especially those that have been unable to attend the meetings, that this
                    will be the final meeting before the Committee meets with the state and federal
                    agencies on March 9, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. at the HRPDC Board Room.

                              Enclosed is a summary of the previous meeting on January 31, 1995, a list of
                    the Goals and Objectives developed by the SWAMP Committee and the dL&
                    Memorandum of Agreement which is currently being reviewed by the staff of the two
                    localities.


                    Summary of SWAMP Meeting on January 31, 1995:

                              The Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC SWAMP met on
                    January 31, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. Attendance at the meeting included Martha Little,
                    Scott Emry and Andrew Garman of the HRPDC staff; Bart Tuthill, Clay Bernick,
                    Barbara Howe and Tom Pauls from the City of Virginia Beach; and Jaleh Pett and
                    Frank Sanders from the City of Chesapeake.


                    OBJECTIVES:


                              The first half of the meeting was spent developing "Objectives" for each of the
                    Goals previously developed by the Committee. The following is a list of the goals and
                    objectives developed through consensus of the Committee members for the Southern
                                                                                                                      an aa




























































                                                                       HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320    (804) 420-8300
                                                                        PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669  (804) 728-2067
                                                                                        43









            Memorandum #95-28
            February 2, 1995
            Page 2


            Watershed Area. Please read through the objectives and be prepared to discuss any
            desired changes at the next meeting or give me or Martha a call beforehand.


            GOAL # 1: WATER QUALITY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND ENHANCED


            OBJECTIVES:


            1 .    Protection of water quality for water supply of the Northwest River Treatment
            Plant.


            2.     Achieve improved water quality, stormwater management control and flood
            control through application of local, state and federal programs and initiatives.

            3.     Study the potential for educational programs for water quality monitoring.

            GOAL # 2: PRESERVE OPEN LANDS INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTED
            LANDS TO HELP PROTECT AND ENHANCE WATER QUALITY


            OBJECTIVES:


            1 .    Preserve critical edge habitat areas (define), wetlands and hardwood swamps
            by application of preservation zoning, conservation easements and any other
            appropriate development incentives.

            2.     Educate citizens, the development community and public officials on the
            importance of open space, agricultural and forested lands and other natural resources
            through outreach programs.

            GOAL # 3: ENSURE COMPATIBILITY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITH
            NATURAL RESOURCE AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION


            OBJECTIVES:


            1 .    Acquire and develop adequate public and private park land and open space that
            compliments the existing park system.

            2.     Encourage appropriate management techniques (such as conservation
            landscaping, water wise landscaping, etc.) for public and private recreational facilities
            for water quality and habitat protection.




                                                        44









           Memorandum #95-28
           February 2, 1995
           Page 3


           3.     Coordinate local activities with state and federal programs such as the North
           Landing Public Access Program and the North Landing River Conservation Program,
           etc.


           NOTE: For the following goals and objectives, "Southern Watersheds" will be defined
           as the Southern Rural Area for Virginia Beach and the Rural Overlay District for
           Chesapeake. It does not include the entire Southern Watershed Area.


           GOAL #4: THE CHARACTER OF THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED SHOULD REMAIN
           RURAL WHILE PROVIDING FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT


           1 .    Infrastructure improvements within the Southern Watershed should represent
           those  necessary to support a rural area.

           2.     Control and monitoring of land use activities; the institution of good land
           management practices.

           3.     Demand created by development should not exceed supply provided by rural
           infrastructure; development should be consistent with local planning policies.

           GOAL #5: AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTHERN
           WATERSHED SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND ENCOURAGED


           1 .    Promote agricultural activities and direct services to agriculture (such as
           improved access to local markets, changes in road or other design standards to
           facilitate equipment transportation, etc.).

           2.     Support programs that provide practical advice and training regarding
           environmentally sound and cost-effective horticultural, agricultural and forestal
           practices.

           MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT:


                  The next portion of the meeting was spent discussing the df& Memorandum
           of Agreement (MOA). The Committee reviewed the draft as a group and agreed to
           take it back to their respective localities for further review and discussion. The
           Committee agreed on the importance of sharing the MOA draft with other local
           government staff members as well as administrators. Each Committee member
           agreed to brief their Department Heads and City Managers on the Goals, Objectives




                                                     45








           Memorandum #95-28
           February 2, 1995
           Page 4


           and draft MOA developed thus far. Further discussion of the MOA draft will continue
           at the next meeting.


           FUTURE MEETINGS:


                  The Committee tentatively scheduled the meeting        with state and federal
           agencies to discuss the progress of the SWAMP project for March 9, 1995, at 9:30
           a.m. at the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Board Room at the Regional
           Building, 723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia. The Committee agreed that this
           meeting will be a good opportunity to discuss the possible initiation of regular
           information exchange on activities in the Southern Watershed Area between the local
           governments and the agencies.

           ML/kl


           Distribution List - Southern Watershed Area Management Program Committee:

           Mr. Amar Dwarkanath (CH)
           Mr.  Brent Neilson (CH)
           Mr. John O'Conner (CH)
           Ms. Jaleh Pett (CH)
           Mr. Bob Pilch (CH)
           Mr.  Frank Sanders (CH)
           Mr.  Ray Stout (CH)
           Mr. Clay Bernick (VB)
           Mr.  Louis Cullipher (VB)
           Mr. John Herzke (VB)
           Ms.  Barbara Howe (VB)
           Mr.  Mark Johnson (VB)
           Mr.  Robert Scott (VB)
           Mr.  Ralph Smith (VB)
           Mr.  Clarence Warnstaff (VB)
           Ms.  Julie Bright (Virginia Dare SWCD)










                                                     46








                                                 DRAFT


                                MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT--SWAMP



            Whereas, Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia enables local governments to enter
            into cooperative agreements to exercise those powers that each may be enabled to
            exercise; and


            Whereas, a Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program grant was obtained by
            the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to facilitate and coordinate a
            "Southern Watershed Area Management Program" with the two local governments,
            Virginia Beach and Chesapeake; and

            Whereas, the "Southern Watershed Area" has been defined for the purposes of this
            program as the watersheds of the Back Bay, North Landing and Northwest water
            bodies (refer to map); and

            Whereas, Section 15.1-446.1 requires every governing body to adopt a
            comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction by July 1, 1980; and

            Whereas, the comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and
            accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory
            which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best
            promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general
            welfare of the inhabitants; and


            Whereas, the Local Government Advisory Committee for the Southern Watershed
            Area Management Program developed consensus on goals and objectives for the
            Southern Watershed Area Management Program based on and in harmony with the
            goals and objectives previously developed for the Comprehensive Plans of each
            localities;


            NOW THEREFORE, the signatory parties enter into the following agreement:

                  This Memorandum of Agreement, entered into this                       day of
                               1995 between the two cities, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake as
            partners, establishes the Cooperative Regional Southern Area Watersheds
            Management Program. It outlines the roles -and responsibilities of each entity in
            administering this program.







                                                     47









            BASIC PREMISES


                   1 .   Section 15.1-431 of the Code, requires that when a proposed
            comprehens    ive plan or amendment thereto, a proposed change in zoning map
            classification, or an application for special exception or variance* involves any parcel
            of land located within one-half mile of a boundary of an adjoining county or
            municipality, then ... written notice shall also be given by the local commission, or its
            representative, at least ten days before the hearing to the chief administrative officer
            or his designee, of such adjoining county or municipality. This Agreement intends to
            develop a coordinated mechanism for fulfilling this requirement and going a step
            further to design a formal process for implementing the Southern Watershed Area
            Management Program.

                   2. The Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have developed a local
            government consensus on Watershed goals, objectives and priorities for the Southern
            Watershed Area from the goals, objectives and priorities adopted in the local
            Comprehensive Plans. This consensus, developed through the Local Government
            Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management
            Program" (SWAMP) is the basis for developing a broader, more comprehensive
            environmental and natural resource management program for the Southern Watershed
            Area.


                   3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS and OBJECTIVES for Environmental
            Management in the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach developed
            through consensus by the Local Government Advisory Committee for SWAMP will be
            accepted as an integral part of the Cooperative Regional Southern Watersheds Area
            Management Program.           Local Government decisions affecting the Southern
            Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach should be consistent with these GOALS
            and OBJECTIVES.


                   4. This agreement establishes the administrative framework which will be used
            by the two local governments to ensure that planning and management initiatives
            affecting the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach are coordinated
            and integrated.

                   5. This Agreement applies only to the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
            Both local governments will be participants in and signatories to the Agreement.

                   6. This Agreement has a term of            years...



                   *Note: Senate Bill No. 766 proposes to change wording to... "variance for
            a change in use, bulk, or height greater than fifty percent of the existing use or
            building, but not including renewals of previous approvals,...


                                                        48










            LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES


                   Under the terms of this Agreement, the signatory local governments are
            responsible for the following:

                   1   Each locality shall appoint a planning department staff person to be
            "Southern Watershed Coordinator" and to serve as the point of contact for issues
            relating to the Southern Watershed. Requests for information on the Southern
            Watershed Area will be addressed to this person.

                   2. A formal institutional staff-level process for cooperative environmental
            management of the Southern Watershed will be designed and implemented. A
            schedule of regular meetings for information exchange between the two local
            governments will be developed.

                   3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES developed by the
            Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC SWAMP will serve as the
            framework for decisions made by the two signatory local governments.               The
            PRIORITIES developed by the SWAMP Committee will serve as the basis for
            developing an action plan for the Southern Watershed Area.

                   4. The two communities should continue informal discussions concerning
            broader coordination of development review affecting the shared resources in the
            Southern Watershed Area.


                   5. The signatory local governments should continuously develop educational
            materials on the sensitive lands, water quality issues and general significance of the
            natural resources of the Southern Watershed to provide to public officials and
            citizens.


                   6. Through the Cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management
            Program, the signatory local governments should aspire to coordinate and integrate
            the multitude of activities and interests in the Southern Watershed Area, including
            endeavors of State and Federal Agencies within the area.

                   7. The signatory local governments should continue analysis of technical water
            quality studies, including exploring the opportunity for watershed-wide educational
            water quality monitoring programs.








                                                      49








       HAMPTON                       RQADS DR. At-AN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN                    BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
       PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                                     ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTORISECRETARY

                    MEMORANDUM #95-40                                                                                February 14, 1995

                    TO: Southern Watershed Area Management Program--SWAMP

                    BY:        John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environrn tal Pla ni rull

                    RE:        Meeting Notes--SWAMP--February 9, 1995                                                                  t


                               ï¿½    The Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern
                                    Watershed Special Area Management Program" (SWAMP) met on February
                                    9, 1995. This memorandum summarizes the discussion and matters of
                                    consensus reached at the meeting.

                               ï¿½    HRPDC staff reminded the Committee of the importance of briefing the City
                                    Manager and other HRPDC Commissioners from the two cities on the project
                                    and the Committee's support for the final product. HRPDC staff anticipates                                                          -
                                    the final report being presented to the Commission for acceptance at the
                                    April 1995 meeting. HRPDC staff is available to assist local staff in these
                                    briefings if Committee members think it useful.

                               *    The Committee scheduled the meeting with state and federal agencies for
                                    March 23, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Board Room of the Regional Building,
                                    723 Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia.



                               GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:


                               The Committee started the meeting with a review of the mission statement,
                               goals and objectives previously developed. The group agreed to finalize these
                               at this meeting. Through a consensus, the following mission statement, goals
                               and objectives were agreed to by the Committee. (The changes made at the
                               meeting are in bold.)

                               MISSION STATEMENT:


                               Natural Resources, sensitive lands, and water supplies of the Southern
                               Watersheds of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake should be protected and
                               enhanced.
                    00@


                                                                                                                                       i,










































































                                                                       HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320    (804) 420-8300
                                                                         PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 (804) 728-2067
                                                                                          50









             GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:


                     1 .    WATER QUALITY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND ENHANCED.


             Objectives:

                     1 .    Protection of water quality for water supply of the Northwest River
                            Treatment Plant.


                     2.     Achieve improved water quality, stormwater management control and
                            flood control through application of local, state and federal programs and
                            initiatives.


                     3.     Study the potential for educational programs for water quality monitoring.

                     4.     Educate citizens, the development community an     d public officials on the
                            importance of water quality issues including water supply and
                            stormwater.


                     2.     PRESERVE OPEN LANDS TO HELP PROTECT AND ENHANCE WATER
                            QUALITY.
                            (Deleted including agricultural and forested lands).

             Objectives:

                     1 .    Preserve critical edge habitat areas, wetlands and hardwood swamps by
                            application of preservation zoning, conservation easements and any other
                            appropriate development incentives.

                     2.     Educate citizens, the development community and public officials on the
                            importance of open space, agricultural and forested lands and other
                            natural resources. (Deleted through outreach programs.)

                     3.     ENSURE COMPATIBILITY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND
                            COMMERCE WITH NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION.


              Objectives:

                     1 .    Acquire and develop adequate public and private park land and open
                            space that compliments the existing park system.

                     2.     Encourage appropriate management techniques (such as conservation and
                            water wise landscaping, etc.) for public and private recreational facilities
                            for water quality and habitat protection.



                                                          51









                    3.     CoorcUnate activities and management of inter-coastal waterways with
                           natural resource and water quality protection.

                    4.     Coordinate local activities with state and federal programs such as the
                           North Landing Public Access Program and the North Landing River
                           Conservation Program, etc.

              NOTE:        For the following goals and objectives, "Southern Watersheds" will be
                           defined as the Southern Rural Area for Virginia Beach and the Rural
                           Overlay District for Chesapeake. It does not include the entire Southern
                           Watershed Area.


                    4.     THE CHARACTER OF THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED SHOULD REMAIN
                           RURAL WHILE PROVIDING FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.


             Objectives:

                    1 .    Infrastructure improvements within the Southern Watershed should
                           represent those necessary to support a rural area and be consistent with
                           local planning policies.

                    2.     Control and monitoring of land use activities; the institution of good land
                           management practices.

                    3.     Demand created by development should not exceed supply provided by
                           rural infrastructure; development should be consistent with local planning
                           policies.

                    5.     AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTHERN
                           WATERSHED SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND ENCOURAGED.


             Objective s:

                    1 .    Promote agricultural activities and direct services to agriculture (such as
                           improved access to local markets, changes in road or other design
                           standards to facilitate equipment transportation, etc.)

                    2.     Support programs that provide practical advice and training regarding
                           environmentally sound and cost-effective horticultural, agricultural and
                           forestal practices.






                                                        52









             PRIORITIES-AND RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS:


                    The Committee next reviewed the priorities and research and data needs which
                    had been identified at an earlier meeting. The following final changes were
                    made at the meeting.

             PRIORITIES:


                    1 .    Develop common goals and a shared vision for the Southern Watershed
                           Area.


                    2.     Provide for multiple uses of waterways and watersheds.

                    3.     Manage nonpoint sources of pollution.

                    4.     Number of agencies and interests in Southern Watersheds illustrates the
                           need for an on-going forum or clearinghouse for information.

                    5.     Manage competing uses in watershed.

                    6.     Identify and reduce data gaps to help further the mission statement.

             RESEARCH AND DATA NEEDS:

                    1.     Explore opportunities for additional water quality monitoring.

                    2.     Encourage compatibility of data.

                    3.     Review of existing data sets to identify data gaps and inconsistencies.

                    4.     Explore opportunity for a Natural Inventory, _@@pil.s. Survey and update to
                           floodplain maps for the City of Chesapeake.

             PRELIMINARY SCOPES OF WORK:

                    The Committee reviewed ideas for preliminary scopes of work         which would
                    address the research and data needs identified above. Staff agreed to expand
                    on these ideas and present more detailed scopes of work for the next meeting.
                    An outline for the final document to be produced for the SWAMP project was
                    also discussed and agreed to. Staff will begin working on the final document
                    and continue to keep the Committee informed on its progress.






                                                         53









             MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT-


                    The Committee discussed the draft Memorandum of Agreement after reviewing
                    it with their Department Heads and other staff members. Enclosed is a copy of
                    the consensus driven draft Memorandum of Agreement with the changes in
                    bold. The Committee agreed to review the draft MOA with the City Managers
                    and other HRPDC Commissioners from the two cities in the coming weeks.
                    HRPDC staff anticipates the final report to be presented to the Commission at
                    the April 1995 meeting. HRPDC staff will be available to assist the local
                    governments in these briefings if the Committee thinks it will be useful.

             EDUCATION:


                    HRPDC staff briefed the Committee on possible topics for the fact sheets or
                    brochures to be developed for public official and citizen education. These
                    included: Southern Watershed Area Project--background, process, conclusions,
                    etc.; Water quality conditions of the three water bodies; Importance of natural
                    resources in watersheds; Federal, state and local initiatives in Southern
                    Watershed Area. The Committee agreed to these topics as issues to be
                    addressed in the educational effort.


             LAND USE MAP:


                    HRPDC staff displayed the land use   map currently under completion by staff.
                    It was agreed that the Southern Watershed boundary will be added to the map.
                    Staff explained that the entire Southern Watershed Area could not be included
                    on the map, but the map illustrates the shared resources within the Southern
                    Watershed Area. The Committee suggested that a notation be added to the
                    land use map which explains that the map was derived from merging the land
                    use maps of the two localities. HRPDC staff noted that the land use categories
                    will also be explained on the map since they are an amalgamation of the land
                    use categories used by the two localities.

             NEXT MEETING--MEETING WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES:

                    The Committee scheduled the meeting with state and federal agencies for
                    March 23, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. at the Board Room of the Regional Building, 723
                    Woodlake Drive, Chesapeake, Virginia. The Committee agreed that this meeting
                    would provide an opportunity for exchanging information with the agencies and
                    possibly discussion of future on-going 'Coordination efforts.

             ML:fh







                                                       54









           Southern Watershed - SWAMP Committee

                  Mr. Brent Nielson, CH
                  Mr. Robert J. Scott, VB
                  Mr. John O'Connor, CH
                  Mr. Ralph Smith, VB
                  Mr. D. Ray Stout, CH
                  Mr. John Herzke, VB
                  Mr. Arnar Dwarkanath, CH
                  Mr. Clarence 0. Warnstaff, VB
                  Mr. Louis E. Cullipher, VB
                  Mr. Clay Bernick, VB
                  Ms. Jaleh Pett, CH
                  Ms. Barbara Howe, VB
                  Mr. Mark Johnson, VB
                  Mr. Frank Sanders, CH
                  Ms. Julie Bright, DCR
                  Mr. Bob Pilch, CH



































                                                 55








                                                 DRAFT


                                 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT--SWAMP



             Whereas, Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia enables local governments to enter
             into cooperative agreements to exercise those powers that each may be enabled to
             exercise; and

             Whereas, a Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program grant was obtained by
             the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to facilitate and coordinate a
             "Southern Watershed Area Management Program" with the two local governments,
             Virginia Beach and Chesapeake; and

             Whereas, the "Southern Watershed Area" has been defined for the purposes of this
             program as the watersheds of the Back Bay, North Landing and Northwest water
             bodies (refer to map); and

             Whereas, Section 15.1-446.1 requires every governing body to adopt a
             comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction by July 1, 1980; and

             Whereas, the comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and
             accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory
             which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best
             promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general
             welfare of the inhabitants; and


             Whereas, the Local Government Advisory Committee for the Southern Watershed
             Area Management Program developed consensus on goals and objectives for the
             Southern Watershed Area Management Program based on and in harmony with the
             goals and objectives previously developed for the Comprehensive Plans of each
             localities;

             NOW THEREFORE, the signatory parties enter into the following agree    ment:

                   This Memorandum of Agreement, entered into this                       day of
                                1995 between the two cities, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake as
             partners, establishes the Cooperative Regional Southern Area Watersheds
             Management Program. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of each entity in
             administering this program.






                                                     56                    Revised February 13, 1995










              BASIC PREMISES


                     1    Section 15.1-431 of the Code, requires that when a proposed
              comprehensive plan or amendment thereto, a proposed change in zoning map
              classification, or an application for special exception or variance* involves any parcel
              of land located within one-half mile of a boundary of an adjoining county or
              municipality, then ... written notice shall also be given by the local commission, or its
              representative, at least ten days before the hearing to the chief administrative officer,
              or his designee, of such adjoining county or municipality. This Agreement intends to
              develop a coordinated mechanism for fulfilling this requirement and going a step
              further to design a formal process for implementing the Southern Watershed Area
              Management Program.

                     2. The Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have developed a local
              government consensus on Watershed goals, objectives and priorities for the Southern
              Watershed Area from the goals, objectives and priorities adopted in the local
              Comprehensive Plans. This consensus, developed through the Local Government
              Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management
              Program" (SWAMP) is the basis for developing a broader, more comprehensive
              environmental and natural resource management program for the Southern Watershed
              Area.


                     3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS and OBJECTIVES for Environmental
              Management in the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach developed
              through consensus by the Local Government Advisory Committee for SWAMP will be
              accepted as an integral part of the Cooperative Regional Southern Watersheds Area
              Management Program.          Local Government decisions affecting the Southern
              Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach should be consistent with these GOALS
              and OBJECTIVES.


                     4. This agreement establishes the administrative framework which will be used
              by the two local governments to ensure that planning and management initiatives
              affecting the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach are coordinated
              and integrated.

                     5. This Agreement applies only to the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
              Both local governments will be participants in and signatories to the Agreement.

                     6. This Agreement has a term of           years...



                     *Note: Senate Bill No. 766 proposes to change wording to... "variance for
              a change in use, bulk, or height greater than fifty percent of the existing use or
              building, but not including renewals of previous approvals,...



                                                         57                     Revised February 13, 1995









             LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES


                    Under the terms of this Agreement, the signatory local governments are
             responsible for the following: '

                    1. Eaeh laeaky The signatory local governments shall appoint a plammimg
             department staff person to be "Southern Watershed Coordinator" and to serve as the
             point of contact for issues relating to the Southern Watershed.         Requests for
             information on the Southern Watershed Area will be addressed to this person.

                    2. A formal institutional staff-level process for cooperative environmental
             management of the Southern Watershed will be designed and implemented. A
             schedule of regular meetings for information exchange between the two signatory
             local governments will be developed.

                    3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES developed by the
             Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC SWAMP will serve as the
             framework for decisions made by the two signatory local governments. The
             PRIORITIES developed by the SWAMP Committee will serve as the basis for
             developing an action plan for the Southern Watershed Area.

                    4. The two eommunitiea signatory local governm e'nts should continue informal
             discussions concerning broader coordination of development review affecting the
             shared resources in the Southern Watershed Area.


                    5. The signatory local governments should eentimtietjs+y develop educational
             materials on the sensitive lands, water quality issues and general significance of the
             natural resources of the Southern Watershed to provide to public officials and
             citizens.


                    6. Through the Cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management
             Program, the signatory local governments should aspire to coordinate and integrate
             the multitude of activities and interests in the Southern Watershed Area, including
             endeavors of State and Federal Agencies within the area.

                    7. The signatory local governments should continue analysis of technical water
             quality studies, including exploring the opportunity for watershed-wide educational
             water quality monitoring programs.










                                                       58                    Revised February 13, 1995







       HXRPTON RQADS DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN - BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN , V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
       PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                        ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY


                  MEMORANDUM #95-71                                                                     March 30, 1995


                  TO: Persons Noted Below


                  BY:      John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Environmen                            tal Planning

                  RE:      Special SWAMP Meeting, March 23, 1995--Meeting Notes


                           The Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan Committee which is
                           made up of members of the Local Government Advisory Committee for the
                           HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan" (SWAMP) and
                           staff from state and federal agencies that have projects in the Southern
                           Watershed region met on March 23, 1995. This memorandum summarizes the
                           discussion at the meeting.

                           An attendance list is attached.


                           The Committee agreed to hold annual meetings. HRPDC staff will notify
                           agencies and organizations of dates and agendas for future meetings will be
                           provided.


                           1.        INTRODUCTION


                                     HRPDC staff opened the meeting with introductions of everyone at the
                                     table and a brief overview of the purpose of the meeting. The history of
                                     the SWAMP program, how it evolved in concert with the APES program
                                     and how funding was obtained for the project through the Virginia
                                     Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental
                                     Quality was explained. Other efforts that evolved out of the original
                                     Coastal Zone Management Program, Section 309 Coastal Zone
                                     Enhancements proposal and why the SWAMP project became a local
                                     government project were discussed. Staff explained that the Local
                                     Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) for SWAMP has been meeting
                                     for the past year and that this meeting was designed to provide an
                                     opportunity for LGAC to exchange information with other agencies and
                                     organizations involved in projects within the SWAMP area.






                                                              HEADQUARTERS - THE REGIONAL BUILDING - 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 - (804) 420-8300
                                                               PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET - SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 - (804) 728-2067
                                                                              59










            MEMORANDUM #95-71
            March 30  ' 1995
            Page 2



            III.   SWAMP STATUS


                   A.     HRPDC Perspective:

                          Next, HRPDC staff discussed the SWAMP Process. How the project
                          evolved from an initial survey, to identifying watershed priorities, goals
                          and objectives in a consensus driven process was explained. It was
                          emphasized how important it was for members of the LGAC to develop
                          goals and objectives for the Southern Watershed which would be
                          consistent with goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plans of each
                          locality.

                          In identifying research and data needs, the LGAC focused on existing
                          water quality monitoring programs as an important issue. A special
                          meeting of the LGAC, at which staff from DEQ, USFWS and DCR
                          explained in detail current water quality monitoring programs in the
                          Southern Watershed region, -supplied a great deal of important
                          information to the Committee.         As part of the SWAMP project,
                          educational brochures and fact sheets will be produced for public officials
                          and citizens. One brochure will specifically focus on current water
                          quality conditions in the area based on the research of LGAC.

                          An outgrowth of the process has been momentum toward the creation
                          of a more formal coordinated management approach to the Southern
                          Watersheds and the development of a draft Memorandum of Agreement
                          between the two local governments. The Memorandum of Agreement
                          is currently under administrative review by the two local governments.
                          If approved, it will serve as the framework for implementation of a
                          coordinated environmental management program for the shared Southern
                          Watershed resources of the two local governments.

                   B.     Local Government Perspective:

                          Each local government was given the opportunity to express their
                          perspective, involvement and interest in the SWAMP process as well as
                          to discuss other projects underway within the SWAMP area. Staff from
                          the City of Chesapeake initiated the discussion, explaining that their
                          primary focus in the project was water supply issues in the Northwest
                          River and protection of rural areas in the rural overlay district of the
                          Southern Watershed. Chesapeake expressed how pleased they were to
                          discover how much the cities had in common and how similar the goals


                                                         60









             MEMORANDUM #95-71
             March 30, 1995
             Page 3


                          were for the Southern Watersheds area outlined in each city's
                          Comprehensive plans. Other activities in the Southern Watershed area
                          which were discussed included: Effects of new regulations on the
                          Northwest River plant; VPDES activities; Drilling of four new wells;
                          Comprehensive plan update to be completed in the next year.

                          Staff from the City of Virginia Beach began by emphasizing the
                          commonality of interest of the two local governments and agencies in the
                          Southern Watershed area and by stressing the importance of working
                          together to develop common resolutions. Staff indicated the desire to
                          continue in the cooperation initiated in the SWAMP process. Other city
                          activities underway in the Southern Watershed included: The Agricultural
                          Reserve Program, a proposal by the city to purchase development rights
                          on agricultural land to preserve the agricultural character of the southern
                          rural area; Nature-based visitation task force initiative of the city to
                          encourage use and citizen enjoyment of city's natural areas;
                          Development of an amphitheater in the northern end of watershed;
                          Expansion of Back Bay Wildlife Refuge; Update to the Comprehensive
                          Plan to be completed next year; Development of data center; and
                          adoption of a Southern Rural Area Zoning Ordinance and Rural
                          Development Guidelines.


             111.   ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION


                    Each agency was given the opportunity to discuss any activities or interests
                    currently underway or proposed for the Southern Watershed area.                The
                    following is a synopsis of this discussion.

                    Fleet Combat Training Center, Dam Neck: Staff indicated that approximately
                    half of the entire property of base is restricted by wetlands. They have been
                    involved in 1:1 wetland mitigation projects and other similar projects with City.
                    Staff emphasized that there is a perception that because of public scrutiny, they
                    must be "on top" of all current environmental issues. They have a good
                    working relationship with city of Virginia. Beach and have coordinated with the
                    city on erosion and sediment control issues.

                    NAS Oceana: Staff stated that there are approximately ten thousand acres of
                    Oceana in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. They work with City of Virginia
                    Beach on many projects including habitat enhancement project, wetlands
                    planting, agricultural leases, nutrient management, vegetative buffer
                    development and other conservation practices. They have property in the North


                                                       61










            MEMORANDUM #95-71
            March 30,1995
            Page 4



                    Landing Ecological Reserve Area and are soliciting help on construction of
                    vegetated wetlands for stormwater management.

                    Back Bay Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Staff indicated that
                    they are in the process of acquiring more land to insulate the area in Bay for
                    birds. They conduct water quality monitoring at intervals after rainfall events
                    on a regular basis. Staff is involved in discussions on access to False Cape and
                    concerned about the effects of ecotourism on migratory bird populations. They
                    are establishing a more complete data base on bird population and are involved
                    in projects of reforestation in the north and west areas of refuge. Currently,
                    staff is negotiating with Virginia Beach on Sandbridge sewer extension and
                    location of Ferrell Parkway; Discussed gradual resurgence of SAV in Refuge.

                    Corps of Engineers: Although regulatory in nature, the Corps is becoming more
                    involved in watershed planning projects similar to the Southern Watershed Area
                    Management Plan. Staff discussed HR925, Regulatory Takings Bill and the
                    possible impacts to all regulatory agencies if passed. Also commented on the
                    Memorandum of Agreement with the Natural Resource Conservation Service
                    (former Soil Conservation Service) and the recent wetlands delineation
                    cooperation between the two agencies.

                    DCR--Dept. of Natural Heritage: Staff distributed handouts (copies attached) on
                    all activities currently underway or recently completed in the Southern
                    Watershed area and discussed the locality liaison project. This project will begin
                    soon and provide the opportunity for more information exchange between
                    localities and Natural Heritage on DNH projects occurring in their jurisdictions.

                    United States Geological Survey: Staff discussed groundwater and borrow pit
                    studies currently underway.

                    Virginia Marine Resources Commission: Staff discussed the wetland and dune
                    permit process including the role of wetlands boards. Staff indicated that the
                    Northwest River does not fall within jurisdiction of the Chesapeake City
                    Wetlands Board, however Back Bay and.the North Landing River do fall within
                    the Jurisdiction of the Virginia Beach Wetlands Board. Staff also discussed the
                    need for data on normal pool elevation in Back Bay.

                    Department of Forestry:      Staff discussed the role of the Department in
                    supporting and assisting private landowners in forest management. An issue
                    which generated considerable discussion was the recent clearing along
                    Sandbridge Road because of pinebark beetle infestations. Staff of U.S. Fish and


                                                           62









             MEMORANDUM #95-71
             March 30, 1995
             Page 5


                    Wildlife Service expressed concern about the clearing so close to the refuge.
                    Department of Forestry staff explained the system of staggered clearing and the
                    reasons for the amount of clearing taking place.

                    Virginia Department of Health: Staff explained the organization of the Water
                    Programs Division which included water supply, wastewater, shellfish
                    sanitation, and water supply engineering departments. They discussed the
                    update to wastewater regulations and recent efforts of VDH in watershed
                    management in response to the Clinton administration initiatives.

                    Department of Environmental Quality--Tidewater Regional Office:              Staff
                    explained the organization of the agency and the Ambient Water Quality
                    Monitoring Program. They discussed the Storet Data Base, its uses and
                    products. Staff described the monitoring stations in the Waterbodies of the
                    Southern Watershed Area, the parameters and frequency of sampling. Staff
                    expressed the view that parameter coverage will most likely be increasing in the
                    future with regards to the 305 (b) report. Other items discussed included
                    consistency of watershed data between DEQ and DCR, Dept. of Forestry and
                    Division of Natural Heritage.

                    Department of Environmental Quality--Virginia Coastal Program: Staff explained
                    the origins and organization of the Coastal Program as well as what types of
                    programs have been funded recently. Staff discussed the importance of the
                    SWAMP project and other projects funded through the Coastal Program. Also
                    indicated that the RFP for upcoming grant money will focus on the following
                    priorities: 1) Tributary Strategies, including Reforestation and Habitat
                    Restoration and 2) Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation. Staff encouraged
                    new proposals related to the SWAMP project.


             IV.    CONCLUSIONS


                    The Committee discussed the importance of coordination and information
                    exchange among the different agencies and local governments involved in the
                    Southern Watershed Area. It was clear that much had been learned about the
                    various programs and data collection of each agency at the meeting and that
                    presently there are deficiencies in coordination among the participants. After
                    much discussion, the Committee agreed that each agency should submit
                    information to the HRPDC in survey response form on data available or projects
                    currently underway in the region. The HRPDC will collect all of this information
                    from the Agencies and local governments and distribute it to the Committee
                    members.


                                                        63










           MEMORANDUM #95-71
           March 30, 1995
            Page 6


                  The Committee also agreed to meet on an annual basis to exchange information
                  in a more personal manner. The group agreed that the meeting provided a
                  forum of exchange which could not be matched through survey information
                  only. HRPDC staff agreed to notify Committee members of the next meeting.

                  MHL:fh


                  Attachment


                  SWAMP Committee - Local Government


                         Mr. Brent Nielson, CH
                         Mr. Robert J. Scott, VB
                         Mr. John O'Connor, CH
                         Mr. Ralph Smith, VB
                         Mr. D. Ray Stout, CH
                         Mr. John Herzke, VB
                         Mr. Amar Dwarkanath, CH
                         Mr. Clarence 0. Warnstaff, V6
                         Mr. Louis E. Cullipher, VB
                         Mr. Clay Bernick, VB
                         Ms. Jaleh Pett, CH
                         Ms. Barbara Howe, VB
                         Mr. Mark Johnson, VB
                         Mr. Frank Sanders, CH
                         Ms. Julie Bright, DCR
                         Mr. Bob Pilch, CH
                         Mr. Jeff Waller, VB
                         Mr. Tom Pauls, VB
                         Mr. Bart Tuthill, VB


                  Agencies

                         Ms. Laura McKay, DEQ
                         Mr. R. Harold Jones, COE
                         Mr. John B. Gallegos, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
                         Ms. Lesa Berlinghoff, DCR
                         Mrr. Daniel B. Horne, Va. Dept. Health
                         Mr. James M.C. Bonavita, FCTCLANT
                         Mr. Fred X. Turck, Dept. of Forestry



                                                  64









          MEMORANDUM #95-71
          March 30, 1995
          Page 7


                     Mr. Randy Owen, VMRC
                     Mr. Michael Focazio, USGS
                     Mr. Roger K. Everton, DEQ
                     Mr. Carl Garrision, Dept. of Forestry
                     Mr. Brian Hostetter, NAS Oceana
                     Ms. Michelle E. Fults, DEQ
                     Mr. Fred Hazelwood, DCR
                     Mr. Tom Smith, DCR National Heritage
                     Mr. Michael Flagg, DCR
                     Mr. Tony Watkinson, VMRC
                     Mr. Mitchell Norman, DGIF
                     Mr. Joe McCauley, FWS
                     Mr. Brian Anderson, DCR
                     Ms. Janit Potter, DCR
                     Ms. Cynthia Linkenhoker, DCR
                     Mr. Mike Lipford, TNC
                     Ms. Pam Couch, Naval Security Group

























                                            65








       t4AMPTON_RQADS DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF, CHAIRMAN - BENJAMIN F. SEAWELL, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN - V. WAYNE ORTON, TREASURER
      PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION                                                                ARTHUR L. COLLINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY
                   MEMORANDUM #95-90                                                             April 26, 1995

                   TO: Persons Noted Below


                   BY: John M. Carlock, Director of Physical and Envi                                 al I n

                   RE:      Southern Watershed Area Program Survey

                            At the special meeting of the Southern Wa                    tershed Area       Management Plan
                            (SWAMP) Committee and other agencies on March 23, 1995, it was agreed
                            that a survey to collect information on projects, programs or data in the
                            Southern Watershed Area would be designed and distributed to agencies. Staff
                            of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission has developed the enclosed
                            survey. Please fill out the questionnaire and return it to the following address
                            by May 17, 1995. Staff will organize the information collected and disseminate
                            it to all participants. If you have any questions,-feel free to give me or Martha
                            Little a call at (804) 420-8300.


                            Martha Little
                            Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
                            The Regional Building
                            723 Woodlake Drive
                            Chesapeake, Va. 23320


                            ML:fh


                            Enclosure























                                                         HEADQUARTERS  THE REGIONAL BUILDING 723 WOODLAKE DRIVE - CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA 23320 (804) 420-8300
                                                          PENINSULA OFFICE - HARBOUR CENTRE, 2 EATON STREET -, SUITE 502 - HAMPTON, VIRGINIA 23669 (804) 728-2067
                                                                          66










             MEMORANDUM #95-90
             April 26,1995
             Page 2

                    SWAMP Committee - Local Government
                           Mr. Brent Nielson, CH
                           Mr. Robert J. Scott, VB
                           Mr. John O'Connor, CH
                           Mr. Ralph Smith, VB
                           Mr. D. Ray Stout, CH
                           Mr. John Herzke, VB
                           Mr. Amar Dwarkanath, CH
                           Mr. Clarence 0. Warnstaff, VB
                           Mr. Louis E. Cullipher, VB
                           Mr. Clay Bernick, VB
                           Ms. Jaleh Pett, CH
                           Ms. Barbara Howe, VB
                           Mr. Mark Johnson, VB
                           Mr.  Frank Sanders, CH
                           Ms. Julie Bright, DCR
                           Mr. Bob Pilch, CH
                           Mr. Jeff Waller, VB
                           Mr. Tom Pauls, VB
                           Mr.  Bart Tuthill, VB


                    Agencies
                           Ms. Laura McKay, DEQ
                           Mr. R. Harold Jones, COE
                           Mr. John B. Gallegos, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
                           Ms.  Lesa Berlinghoff, DCR
                           Mrr. Daniel B. Horne, Va. Dept. Health
                           Mr. James M.C. Bonavita, FCTCLANT
                           Mr.  Fred X. Turck, Dept. of Forestry
                           Mr. Randy Owen, VMRC
                           Mr. Michael Focazio, USGS
                           Mr.  Roger K. Everton, DEQ
                           Mr.  Carl Garrision, Dept. of Forestry
                           Mr.  Brian Hostetter, NAS Oceana
                           Ms. Michelle E. Fults, DEQ
                           Mr. Fred Hazelwood, DCR
                           Mr. Tom Smith, DCR National Heritage
                           Mr. Michael Flagg, DCR
                           Mr. Tony Watkinson, VMRC
                           Mr. Mitchell Norman, DGIF
                           Mr. Joe McCauley, FWS
                           Mr. Brian Anderson, DCR
                           Ms.  Janit Potter, DCR
                           Ms. Cynthia Linkenhoker, DCR
                           Mr. Mike Lipford, TNC
                           Ms.  Pam Couch, Naval Security Group



                                                       67









                        SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

                                      AGENCY PROGRAM OVERVIEW

                                                  SURVEY


            Please respond to the following questions from the perspective of your agency,
            department or organization. Please give thorough answers, using extra pages if
            necessary.



            Name and Title:



            Department:


            Agency, Organization:



            1.     What regulatory and/or research programs are   you or your agency currently
                   involved with in the Southern Watershed Area?







            2.     Please describe in detail each of the programs or projects mentioned above in
                   item 1.








            3.     What regulatory and/or research programs have you or your agency been
                   involved with in the recent past in the Southern Watershed Area? Give a brief
                   description of activity.









                                                      68








            4.     Does your agency or organization propose to be involved in any regulatory
                   and/or research programs in the Southern Watershed Area in the future? Please
                   give a brief description of the project including proposed time frame.











             5.    What sources of information or data does your agency possess on water quality
                   or other resources within the Southern Watershed Area?        Which of these
                   databases are maintained on an ongoing basis? What is the update schedule?
                   Please describe the format within which this information is managed.







             6.    How might other agencies or organizations access the information pertaining to
                   the Southern Watershed Area maintained by your agency or organization?












             7.    What agencies or organizations have you worked with on projects or programs
                   in the Southern Watershed Area?












                                                      69








            8.     Are there any agencies or organizations with whom your agency would like to
                   work more closely on projects in the Southern Watershed Area? If so, please
                   name them.









            9.     What types of information would your agency like to acquire or have access to
                   for projects in the Southern Watershed Area?








            10.    What suggestions would you make for improving data consistency, coordination
                   of activities and information exchange between agencies?









                   Please return to:


                   Martha Little
                   Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
                   723 Woodlake Drive
                   Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
                   Telephone: 804 420-8300
                   Fax: 523-4881
















                                                  70




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                     APPENDIX C
I                  SAMPLE LGAC SURVEY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I











                                                    SWAMP
                                        LOCAL GOVERNMENT SURVEY



                   From the perspective of your agency or institution, please answer the following
             questions. Please give thorough answers, using extra pages if necessary.

             1 .   What regulatory and/or research programs are you currently involved with in the
                   Southern Watershed Area?




             2.    What are the greatest impediments to developing a management plan for the
                   Southern Watershed Area? What is needed to overcome these impediments?




             3.    Describe additional data and research activities you think are necessary for the
                   development of comprehensive and/or issue specific management programs. Why?




             4.    What gaps presently exist in the management and regulation of this area within
                   your jurisdiction?




             5.    How should this consensus-building effort differ from other, past or present
                   efforts?




             6.    Describe what you see as critical watershed problems and concerns?




             7.    What land use changes have occurred in the last five years which may have an
                   impact on the SWA?







             Return to:


             Martha Little
             Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
             723 Woodlake Drive
             Chesapeake, Virginia 23320
                                                       72




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I

                                    APPENDIX D
 I                        LGAC SURVEY RESPONSE SYNTHESIS
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I













            CRITICAL WATERSHED PROBLEMS


            #6.    Describe what you see as critical watershed problems and concerns?

                  The following is a list of all the responses to question #6 of the survey received
                  by HRPDC:

                  0      Preservation of drinking water supply;

                  0      Chemical Spills;

                  0      Protection of environmentally sensitive resources;

                  0      Lack of interest from Chesapeake and Virginia Beach communities;

                  0      Imprope r Sewage Discharges;

                  0      Further use of BMP's for Development and Agriculture;

                  0      Impervious covering of watershed;

                  0      Urban NPS runoff impacts to habitat areas;

                  0      Inspection and enforcement of regulations;

                  0      Need land -use patterns that protect Natural Resources;

                  0      Maintenance of Drainage Systems;

                  0      Effectiveness of in-field management practices.

                  During discussions at the meeting on December 2, 1994, the following
                  responses were added to the previous list.

                  0      Lack of public access

                  0      No consensus among diverse groups

                  0      Diverse expectations from various interest groups


                  0      Lack of Unified Focus


                  0      Multiple uses of waterways



                                               74










                              CRITICAL WATERSHED PROBLEMS--PRIORITIES



            The Committee decided that the three most important watershed problems were:

                   The #1 priority is the need for land use management tools which is essentially
                   a combination of three previous responses--1)         Impervious covering of
                   watershed; 2) Urban/Suburban land conversion; 3) Need land-use patterns that
                   protect natural resources.

                   The #2 priority is the need for technical ways to handle/improve water quality
                   which in essence combines the following two previous responses: 1) Further
                   use of BMP's for development and agriculture and 2) Maintenance of drainage
                   systems.

                   The #3 priority is the multiple uses of waterways/watersheds. This response
                   led to the decision of the Committee to list all existing uses of waterways and
                   the watershed. This response also reflected the group's belief that a lack of
                   unified focus in management and future goals is an impediment to developing
                   a management plan.






























                                                      75











                                  IMPEDIMENTS TO MANAGEMENT PLAN



             #2     What are the greatest impediments to developing a management plan for the
                    Southern Watershed Area?


                    The following is a list of the responses to question #2 of the survey.

                    0     Need for more personnel and equipment

                    0     Lack of political guidance, leadership vision

                    0     Number of Agencies and interests

                    0     Conflicting objectives

                    0     Lack of Water Quality "Causal" information

                    0     Communications; coordination; duplication of effort--need on-going forum
                          of government, citizens and interest groups

                    0     Lack of education and willingness to reach compromise

                    0     Multiple uses in watershed




             The Committee chose the following three impediments as the top priorities for the
             SWA:


                    1. Lack of unified focus or conflicting objectives

                    2. Number of Agencies and interests--need for on-going forum

                    3. Multiple uses in Watershed


             As the exercise continued it was evident to the Committee that the boundary between
             priorities of impediments and critical watershed problems became less clear. The
             Committee decided to discuss and prioritize the survey responses to research and data
             needs at the next meeting.







                                                      76




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                     APPENDIX E
                    WATERBODY USES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I















                                             MULTIPLE USES



            NORTHWEST WATERWAY:                                 WATERSHED:


            Water Supply                                        Agriculture

            Recreation                                          Forestry

            Drainage                                            Recreation

            Habitat                                             Military

            Wastewater Assimilation                             Residential Development

            Flood Control                                       Limited Commercial Dev.


                                                                Conservation/Open Space




            BACK BAY WATERWAY:                                  WATERSHED:


            Recreation                                          Habitat/Conservation


            Habitat                                             Recreation/Tourism

            Commercial Fishing                                  Agriculture

            Flood Control                                       Urban Residential


            Drainage                                            Rural Residential

            Wastewater Assimilation                             Commercial Development

                                                                Military









                                                     78










                                          MULTIPLE USES CONT'D



             NORTH LANDING WATERWAY:                             WATERSHED:


             Recreation                                          Military

             Habitat                                             Urban Residential

             Drainage                                            Agriculture

             Transportation                                      Forestry

             Flood Control                                       Conservation/Open Space






             Wastewater Assimilation                             Recreation


                                                                 Commercial Development

                                                                 Borrow Pits


                                                                 Industrial Development
                                                                 Rural Residential


                                                                 Bridge Crossings




















                                                     79




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I                     APPENDIX F
               SOUTHERN WATERSHED LAND USE MAP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I





































































                                               CHESAP





                                                                             VIRGINIA BEACH PA











                                                                     NORTH CAROLDIA


                SOUTHERN WATERSHED GENERALIZED LAND USE

                          RURAL I AGRICULTURE                          GOVERNMENT I INSTITUTIONAL
                          COUNTRYSIDE: ONE uNrr PER ACRE -             INDUSTRY                                   N                  MILES
                              ONE UNrr PER TEN ACRES

                          LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: LESS THAN           PARK i OPEN SPACE
                              SEVEN OUS PER ACRE


                          HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL                     CONSERVATION


                          COMMERCIAL                                   WATER                                                    MMPTON PQADS

               SOURCE: LAND USE MAP CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA AND THE COMPREHENSIVE
                       PLAN MAP, 1990, VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA ADOPTED FEB. 23, 1988




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                 APPENDIX G
                       WATER QUALITY MONITORING INFORMATION
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I





          DEQ TRO
          PLANNING and PERMIT SUPPORT PROGRAMS



          water Quality Assessments
               305(b) Report
               EIS Reviews
               Priority Waterbodles Catalog
               STORET Water Quality Data Support
               Water Body System

          Water Quality Management Planning
               303(e) Plans
                    Database Management
                    303(dYTMDL Development
                    VIRDES Facility Inventory
               VPDES Permit Conformance Statements
               Water Quality Modeling

          Virginia Revolving Loan Fund
               Constmction Assistance

          Water Supply Planning
               HRSD Reuse Committee
               Lake Gaston Project
               Technical Assistance to Communities
               Regional Raw Water Study Group
                    (Newport News Water Supply Project)
               Virginia Water Use Data System
                    (Reg 11 Reporting)

          Special Projects
               604(b) External and Internal Grant Projects
               Computer Technical Coordination
               CVC CFRO Committee
               Shellfish Project
         Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office, 1995.


                                        83





                          AWQM STATIONS

             NORTHWEST RIVER WATERSHED


                                   STATION                             FREQUENCY
             Northwest River at Rt. 168 Bridge                                  M


             NORTH LANDING RIVER WATERSHED


                                   STATION                             FREQUENCY
             North Landing River at Rt. 165 Bridge                              M
             West Neck Creek at 627 Bridge                                      M
             West Neck Creek at Rt. 603 Bridge                                  M
             North Landing River at VA/NC Line                                  Q
             North    Landing River at Mill Dam Creek                           Q
             North    Landing     River at Blackwater Creek                     Q
             North    Landing     River at Rt. 190                              Q
             North    Landing     R. 2mi upstream Rt. 160                       Q
             North    Landing     River at Pocaty River                         a
             North    Landing     River at West Neck Creek                      Q









          Source: Department of Environmental   Quality, Tidewater Regional Office, 1995.


                                                 84





                                AWQM PARAMETERS


           FIELD

                 Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity,
                 Conductivity, & pH

           CONVENTIONAL.

                 Biochemcial Oxygen Demand (BOD),
                 Chloride, Sulfate, Conductivity, "Solids",
                 Alkalinity, Turbidity, Chemcial Oxygen
                 Demand (COD), Total Organic Carbon (TOC),
                 & Hardness


           NUTRIENTS-

                 Total Kjeldahl                 Nitrogen           (TKN), Total
                 Phosphorus, Ortho Phosphorus, Ammonia,
                 Nitrate, & Nitrate

           FECAL COLIFORM


           WATER COLUMN METALS

                 Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead,
                 Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Silver, Thallium,
                 Zinc, & Lithium

                Cholorphyll a,b,c and Phaeophyton are
           collected at some Back Bay stations
           Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office, 1995.

                                                 85









                    USES OF THE STORET DATA INFORMATION
                         (INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY)




                      WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT (305B)

                        DEVELOPMENT OF 303(d)/TMDL LISTINGS

                         WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS


                    VIRGINIA WATER PROTECTION PERMIT DECISIONS


                   MODELING FOR USE IN DETERMINING PERMIT LIMITS


                   CONSULTANTS FOR VARIOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS


                     DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
                          (use in the 319 Nonpoint Source Report)

           GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD


           GRADUATE STUDENTS WORKING ON ENVIRONMENT STUDIES/REPORTS


           CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WQ OF THE WATERS NEAR THEIR HOMES
















        Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office, 1995.

                                         86












           Cn
           0               LISTING OF FACILITIES IN THE BACK BAY/NORTH LANDING RIVER AREA
           C

           0
              DOT# WBID # VPDES # FACILITY NAME                        FACILITY       RECIEVING WATERS
                                                                       TYPE
           CD

                        K01   VA0005266   OCEANA NAVAL AIR STATION     INDIMINOR      NORTH LANDING R, WEST NECK CR
           r+
           3
           CD
           =3  2        K03   VA0024562   HICKORY SCHOOLS WWTP         MUN/MINOR      CHESAPEAKE & ALBEMARLE C, UT
           r+
           0
           h   3        K02   VA0064289   HOPE HAVEN - UNION MISSION   MUN/MINOR      NORTH LANDING R, UT
           M

               4        K02   VA0037113   NORFOLK DREDGING CO.         MUN/MINOR      CHESAPEAKE & ALBEMARLE C
           0
           =3
           3   5        K02   VA0076635   BERGEYS DAIRY FARM           INDIMINOR      CHESAPEAKE & ALBEMARLE C

               6        K02   VA0082520   MT. PLEASANT MENNONITE CH    MUN/MINOR      OFF - LINE

    00     C
    14     2L  7        K02   VA0087548   STANDARD TRANSPIPE VA. INC   IND/MINOR      NORTH LANDING R
           r+
           1<
               8        K03   VA0024244   NAVAL SECURITY GROUP - NW    MUN/MINOR      NORTHWEST R, UT
           -q
           CL
           CD  9        K03   VA0057550   CHESAPEAKE WTP (discharge)   INDIMINOR      NORTHWEST R

               10       K04   VA0060526   VDOC - ST. BRIDES CORRECT.   MUNIMINOR      NORTHWEST R, INDIAN CRK

           co  11       K03   VA0068209   CHESAPEAKE MUN. AIRPORT      MUN/MINOR      NORTHWEST R, UT
           0
               12       K04   VA0071617   CHESAPEAKE WTP (sludge lag)  INDIMINOR      NORTHWEST R. INDIAN CRK, UT
           0
               13       K01   VA0062391   INDIAN COVE CAMPGROUND       MUN/MINOR      HELL POINT CRK
           0
           p
               14       K01   VA0085430   FALSE CAPE STATE PARK        INDIMINOR      BACK BAY
           CD                             (well water treatment sys)
           CD
           Cn











                                                                    SOUTHERN WATERSHED MONITORING

                                                                           STATIONS AND DISCHARGES










                                                                             Ambient Quality Monitoring Stations




                                                                                  Facility Discharge Locations








                      M



                                                                .1C.




                                                                711









                          Zt


              Z

                                                                   U@


                                       %






                   z

            --7= Z'


        Source: - Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I

                                    APPENDIX H
 I                       WATER QUALITY INFO RMATIO N--SWAMP
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I






                  TABLE 1. Water quality studies in Back Bay, Virginia and its tributaries.


                    DATE                        ORGANIZATION                PARAMETERS                   LOCATION



                    1925- 1924                  Game Preservation           salinity                     Knotts Island (9
                                                Association                                              sample sites)

                    1946                        VPISU                       salinity                     Back Bay NWR (9)

                    1949- 1955                  USACE                       salinity                     Knotts Island (1)
                                                                                                         North Bay (1)

                    1953- 1956                  Anonymous                   salinity                     Redhead Bay (1)

                    1958- 1963                  USFWS, NCWRC,               salinity, PH,                Back Bay, Currituck
                                                VDGIF                       alkalinity, turbidity,       Sound (60 sample
                                                                            light penetration,           sites)
                                                                            metals, nutrients

                    1965- 1977                  USFWS                       salinity, turbidity          Back Bay (22
                                                                                                         sample stations)

                    1972 - present              VWCB                        PH, DO,                      Back Bay and creeks
                                                                            conductivity,                (17 sample sites)
                                                                            nutrients

                    1978 - present              VOGIF                       salinity, turbidity          Back Bay (24
                                                                                                         sample sites)

                    1977- 1988                  LISGS                       light attentuation,          Back Bay, North Bay
                                                                            TSS, turbidity,              (7 sample sites)
                                                                            chlorophyll-a

                    1983                        Roy Mann                    PH, nutrients, TSS,          Back Bay, North
                                                Associates                  turbidity                    Bay, creeks (20
                                                                                                         sample sites) Back
                                                                                                         Say (6 sample sites)

                    1986- 1989                  VDGIF, Back Bay             TSS, nutrients               Back Bay (6 sample
                                                Restoration                                              sites)
                                                Foundation

                    1991                        USFWS                       PH, DO,                      Back Bay and
                                                                            conductivity,                tributaries (7 sample
                                                                            sediment metals and          sites)
                                                                         A -pesticides
                    1993- 1994                  USFWS                       nutrients, sediments,
                                                                            turbidity


                  VPISU    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
                  USFWS    United States Fish and Wildlife Service
                  NCWRC    North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
                  VWC3     Virginia Water Control Board
                  VOGIF    Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
                  USGS     United States Geological Survey



                  Source: Back Bay, Virginia: A Literaturp, Review and Synthesis of Natural Resource
                               Status and Trends, September 1994.


                                                                           90


















                     10                                                                  30


                        80-                                                            -24


                        60-                                                              18  Cn
                 CD                                                                          a)
                 0

                 CD
                        40-                                                            -12


                        20-                                                            -6


                        0                                                               0
                          63 65 67     @9   @1  73 75 77 79 81 @3           @5  @7 89
                                                      Year


                                       - % vegetation        --- secchi







               Figure 5.    Comparison of mean Secchi disc visibility (inches) with abundance of submerged
                             aquatic vegetation M occurrence at sampling stations.)

               Source:       Norman and Southwick, VDGIF, 1990









             Source: Back-Bay, Virginia: A Literaturp, Review and Synthes*s of Natural Resource
                       Status and Trends, September 1994.


                                                        91






















                    Thousands                                   Percent
               150-                                                -1100%
               140-
               130-
               120-                                                   -75%
               110-
               100-
                 90-
                 80-                                                  -50%
                 70-
                 60-
                 so-
                 40                                                    25%
                 30-
                 20-
                 10-
                 0
                    54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90










             Figure 3. Total waterfowl and percent frequency of SAV in Back Bay, Virginia.

             Source:   Settle and Schwab, VDGIF, 1990








          Source: BaGk Bay. Virainia: A Literajure Review and Synthpsis of Natural Resource
                  Status and Trends, September 1994.


                                           92











                                          EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA




                 Water Quality          Northwest River           North Landing              Back Bay
                        Data                                           River

              CWA Swimmable            100% Fully               100% Fully              100% Fully
              Goal                     Supports                 Supports                Supports

              Fish Consumption         100% Fully               100% Fully              100% Fully
              Goal                     SLIPPorts                Supports                Supports

              Aquatic Life Goal        100% Fully               90% Fully Supports      66% Fully Supports
                                       Supports                 10% Threatened          34% Threatened
                                                                     (94 Data)

              DO Standard              Yes (From Natural        Minor Violations        Yes (From Natural
              Violations               Conditions)                                      Conditions)

              Elevated Nutrients       Yes (After Storms)       Yes (From NPS           Yes (Agriculture
                                                                Such as Animal          and Residential
                                                                Waste and               Areas)
                                                                Fertilizers)

              PH Standard              Yes (92 Data)            ND                      ND
              Violations

              Change in Salinity       Increase in Salinity     ND                      Decline in Salinity
                                       Due to Water
                                       Supply System

              Point Source             5 Minor                  6 Minor                 2 Minor
              Discharge

              Overall Watershed        Madium                   High                    High
              Rating

              Pollution Potential:

                      Agricultural     High                     High                    High

                       Urban           Low                      High                    High

                      Forestry         Low                      Low                     Low

              SAV Population           ND                       ND                      Decline


             Sources:       Virginia Water Quality Assessment for 1992 - 1         994, 305 (b) Report for
                            EPA and Congress; Back Bay. Virginia: A Literature Review and
                            Synthesis Qf Natural Fl6source Stgtus and Trends, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                            Service, September 1994; Albemarle-Pamlico Profiles, HRPDC, 1993.

             Key:           IND = No Data
                                                              93











                                          LAND USE

                                    Northwest   T-iorlh Landing        Back Bay
                                   Waterbody             River

           Agricultural                25%               44%              33%


           Developed Land               5%                18%              7%


           Underdeveloped Land         70%               34%              36%
                                                                    24% Protected

           Open Water                  ND                  4%             ND




          Source:    Al bernarle- Pamlico Profiles, HRPDC, 1993.


          Key:       ND    No Data





























                                              94



                            M M MM M M M M M MM M M                                                                      @'-



                          N o n p o i n t   ' S 0 u r c e P 0       1 u    i.o n P r      o r i t i e s
                            n t h e C h o w a n          A I b e m a r     e S o u n d B a s         n s



                                                                                                 Slats HjOdr:1:q1c Units
                                                                                                 C 0 u n Iu d r is s
                                                                                                USCS iatershods

                                                             ........... ....
                                                                                                    h P r I a r I t y
                                                                                                  e d .P r I a r I I y
                                                                                             0.  Lai Prhrily

    (D
    C.71






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





                                                                                                                 1 111+44











                                       Dols logicsu
                                                                          Arclos
                                                             P 1h,
       21 Its It                                                                                                 Out F Mu"Arl"

       SOURCt: Department of Conservation and Recreation. Division of Soil and Water
                Conservation, 1993.




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I                                APPENDIX I
  I                      DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
                          VIRGINIA BEACH AND CHESAPEAKE
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I








                                                 DRAFT


                                 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT--SWAMP



            Whereas, Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia enables local governments to enter
            into cooperative agreements to exercise those powers that each may be enabled to
            exercise; and


            Whereas, a Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program grant was obtained by
            the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to facilitate and coordinate a
            "Southern Watershed Area Management Program" with the two local governments,
            Virginia Beach and Chesapeake; and

            Whereas, the "Southern Watershed Area" has been defined for the purposes of this
            program as the watersheds of the Back Bay, North Landing and Northwest water
            bodies (refer to map); and

            Whereas, Section 15.1-446.1 requires every governing body to adopt a
            comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction by July 1, 1980; and

            Whereas, the comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and
            accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory
            which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best
            promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general
            welfare of the inhabitants; and


            Whereas, the Local Government Advisory Committee for the Southern Watershed
            Area Management Program developed consensus on goals and objectives for the
            Southern Watershed Area Management Program based on and in harmony with the
            goals and objectives previously developed for the Comprehensive Plans of each
            localities;

            NOW THEREFORE, the signatory parties enter into the following agreement:

                   This Memorandum of Agreement, entered into this                      day of
                              1 1995 between the two cities, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake as
            partners, establishes the Cooperative Regional Southern Area Watersheds
            Management Program. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of each entity in
            administering this program.







                                                     97                     Revised March 14, 1995










              BASIC PREMISES


                     1 -   Section 15.1-431 of the Code, requires that when a proposed
              comprehensive plan or amendment thereto, a proposed change in zoning map
              classification, or an application for special exception or variance* involves any parcel
              of land located within one-half mile of a boundary of an adjoining county or
              municipality, then ... written notice shall also be given by the local commission, or its
              representative, at least ten days before the hearing to the chief administrative officer,
              or his designee, of such adjoining county or municipality. This Agreement intends to
              develop a coordinated mechanism for fulfilling this requirement and going a step
              further to design a formal process for implementing the Southern Watershed Area
              Management Program.

                     2. The Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake have developed a local
              government consensus on Watershed goals, objectives and priorities for the Southern
              Watershed Area from the goals, objectives and priorities adopted in the local
              Comprehensive Plans. This consensus, developed through the Local Government
              Advisory Committee for the HRPDC "Southern Watershed Special Area Management
              Program" (SWAMP) is the basis for developing a broader, more comprehensive
              environmental and natural resource management program for the Southern Watershed
              Area.


                     3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS and OBJECTIVES for Environmental
              Management in the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach developed
              through consensus by the Local Government Advisory Committee for SWAMP will be
              accepted as an integral part of the Cooperative Regional Southern Watersheds Area
              Management Program.           Local Government decisions affecting the Southern
              Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach should be consistent with these GOALS
              and OBJECTIVES.


                     4.    The Memorandum of Agreement and associated local government
              responsibilities relating to Virginia Beach and Chesapeake's Southern Watershed Area
              Management Program serves as an instrument of cooperative regional planning. The
              policies and related responsibilities effected by this agreement shall not restrict either
              locality's legitimate function to study, plan and, if deemed to be in the public interest,
              adopt appropriate planned land use, zoning and other development related changes
              in the defined Southern Watersheds Area.






                     *Note: Senate Bill No. 766 proposes to change wording to... "variance for
              a change in use, bulk, or height greater than fifty percent of the existing use or
              building, but not including renewals of previous approvals,... "


                                                           98                       Revised March 14, 1995









                     5. The policies and related responsibilities effected by this agreement shall not
              allow either locality to prevent or restrict the other locality from exercising, at its own
              discretion, what it determines to be the appropriate use of lands contained within its
              boundaries.


                     6. This agreement establishes the administrative framework which will be used
              by the two local governments to ensure that planning and management initiatives
              affecting the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach are coordinated
              and integrated.

                     7. This Agreement applies only to the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.
              Both local governments will be participants in and signatories to the Agreement.

                     8. This agreement shall remain in effect until either signatory local government
              shall elect to withdraw. The Agreement may be amended at anytime with both cities'
              consent.


              LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES


                     Under the terms of this Agreement, the signatory local governments are
              responsible for the following:

                     1.   The signatory local governments shall appoint a staff person to be
               Southern Watershed Coordinator" and to serve as the point of contact for issues
              relating' to the Southern Watershed. Requests for information on the Southern
              Watershed   Area will be addressed to this person.

                     2. A formal institutional staff-level process for cooperative environmental
              management of the Southern Watershed will be designed and implemented. A
              schedule of regular meetings for information exchange between the two signatory
              local governments will be developed.

                     3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES developed by the
              Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC SWAMP will serve as the
              framework for decisions made by the two signatory local governments.                    The
              PRIORITIES developed by the SWAMP Committee will serve as the basis for
              developing an action plan for the Southern Watershed Area.

                     4. The two signatory local governments should continue informal discussions
              concerning broader coordination of development review affecting the shared
              resources in the Southern Watershed Area.


                     5. The signatory local governments should develop educational materials on
              the sensitive lands, water quality issues and general significance of the natural
              resources of the Southern Watershed to provide to public officials and citizens.


                                                          99                        Revised March 14, 1995









                   6. Through the Cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management
            Program, the signatory local governments should aspire to coordinate and integrate
            the multitude of activities and interests in the Southern Watershed Area, including
            endeavors of State and Federal Agencies within the area.

                   7. The signatory local governments should continue analysis of technical water
            quality studies, including exploring the opportunity for watershed-wide educational
            water quality monitoring programs.













































                                                     100                     Revised March 14, 1995




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                      APPENDIX J
I                 FUTURE TASKS AND STUDIES
I                PRELIMINARY SCOPES OF WORK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I










                                  SWAMP PRELIMINARY SCOPES OF WORK



             WATER QUALITY ISSUES--BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS:


                 Routine ambient water quality monitoring is conducted by several agencies.
             Additionally, the City of Chesapeake conducts water quality monitoring on a daily
             basis at its water supply intake on the Northwest River. Ambient sampling stations
             on Back Bay are located exclusively in the main stem of the Bay. Most ambient
             sampling on the North Landing and Northwest Rivers is also conducted in the main
             channels. This sampling program, while appropriate for characterization of water
             quality in the primary waterbodies, is inadequate to characterize the contributions of
             nutrients and stormwater associated with the tributaries, especially during storm
             events.   This also compounds the difficulty of assessing the relative role of
             stormwater runoff in the quality of these sensitive waterbodies.          An intensive
             stormwater runoff monitoring program, conducted in a coordinated fashion with the
             ongoing ambient monitoring program, will assist in determining the relative role of
             stormwater borne nutrients and sediments in the water quality problems of the Bay
             and Rivers. These include eutrophication and excessive turbidity. A more intensive
             monitoring program is also necessary to support any efforts at modelling water quality
             conditions and the impacts of potential new development and/or management
             approaches.

                 To un dertake a comprehensive water quality monitoring and modelling program
             in the Southern Watershed, the following steps are necessary:

                 ï¿½   A Water Quality Task Force, comprised of representatives of the DEQ (Water
                     Division), FWS, VIMS, ODU, USGS, VDGIF, DCR-DNH & DSWC, HRPDC,
                     HRSD and the two cities, will be convened. The mission of this Task Force
                     will be to evaluate existing water quality data to determine its sufficiency for
                     defining water quality conditions and to determine the sufficiency of that data
                     for defining the sources of those problems.

                 ï¿½   The Task Force will prepare a synthesis of existing water quality information,
                     including ongoing monitoring, about the Watershed to document current
                     Watershed water quality conditions and trends, based on available data.
                     Using this synthesis as well as the raw data itself, the Task Force will conduct
                     the aforementioned evaluation.


                 0   Based on the evaluation, a detailed sampling program will be designed to
                     address identified inadequacies in the existing system. It is expected that this
                     program will include an intensification of the current monitoring program and
                     increased monitoring of stormwater and the effectiveness of existing
                     management practices. The intensified ambient monitoring program will be
                     designed to support development of water quality model(s) of the watershed's


                                                       102









                     major waterbodies. The program will be designed to maximize the cost-
                     effectiveness of individual agency monitoring efforts.

                     A sampling protocol, addressing ambient conditions, stormwater inputs from
                     urban and agricultural areas, and point sources will be designed. It will be
                     consistent with the regional stormwater monitoring protocol.

                 ï¿½   The stormwater monitoring program will be coordinated with the NPDES
                     Stormwater Monitoring Programs being conducted by the two Cities and the
                     FWS program in Back Bay.            It will be used to define the relative
                     stormwater/nonpoint source contributions of watershed land uses as well as
                     the major tributaries to the principal waterbodies.        It will also include
                     evaluation of the effectiveness of currently implemented Best Management
                     Practices.


                 ï¿½   The monitoring program will document seasonal variations in loadings and
                     through the modelling effort the seasonal variations in impacts.

                 ï¿½   Data obtained during this study will ultimately be used in developing
                     recommendations for water-body specific water quality standards if
                     appropriate, designing implementation strategies for best management
                     practices (BMPs) and facilitating state and local management program
                     decisions and recommendations.


                 ï¿½   Insofar as the stormwater program is concerned, the following factors will be
                     addressed to ensure compatibility with the current FWS stormwater program
                     for Back Bay.

                        Monitoring stations will be established at the mouths of the twelve main
                        tributaries to the Bay and Rivers. Automatic samplers, activated during
                        peak flow rates, (storm periods) will be used. This will permit identified
                        gaps in the water quality data base to be filled. This should provide local
                        government and state agencies with the data necessary to develop
                        strategies for implementation of agricultural and urban BMPs as well as to
                        develop protection and management plans for critical environmental
                        resources.


                        Initial efforts will focus on identification of the tributaries which are the
                        greatest contributors of stormwater-related nutrients and sediments.
                        Follow-up studies will focus on these tributaries and sampling efforts will
                        be intensified. Future sampling stations will be established throughout the
                        tributaries to determine locations within their drainage areas which should
                        be targeted for management efforts. In the final stage of the program,
                        pilot BMP projects will be implemented. This will permit determination of
                        the most effective BMPs for use in this watershed. Included within the


                                                       103









                        BMP pilot program will be the use and sampling of alternative vegetative
                        buffers as BMPs.


                        Samples will be taken for three storm events in each of the four seasons.
                        Thus, a minimum of twelve storm events will be sampled for each
                        tributary. Parameters to be measured will include:

                            Total Suspended Solids
                            Volatile Suspended Solids
                            Fixed Suspended Solids
                            Nitrogen and Phosphorus Series
                            Chlorophyll a
                            Total Organic Carbon
                            Representative pesticides and herbicides. Sampling will be tied to
                            specific pesticide and herbicide use within the watershed.
                            Metals and Organics, based on the NPIDES stormwater sampling
                            program.


                        BMP demonstration projects will be sampled to determine the effectiveness
                        of selected BMPS, including vegetated buffers. Paired watersheds (with
                        and without BMPS) or paired sites on a single BMP (above and below the
                        practice) will be sampled. Both agricultural and urban BMPs will be
                        sampled.

                    Water Quality Models will be developed for each of the three primary
                    waterbodies in the Southern Watershed. Following calibration and verification
                    according to standard scientific procedures, the models will be utilized to
                    evaluate future development scenarios, and mixes of management practices.

                 9  Reports will be prepared to document the water quality data synthesis and
                    evaluation, water quality characterization, relative stormwater contributions,
                    water quality models and model evaluations.

                 A  project cost estimate has not been prepared. An estimate will be developed
             following the Task Force data evaluation and program development effort. The initial
             Task Force effort should have minimal cost, beyond report preparation and meeting
             expense, assuming the willingness of the agencies to participate in this effort through
             normal operations.










                                                       104










             COORDINATION/lINTERACTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND
             LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:


                 The Southern Watershed Special Area Management Plan Committee, which is
             made up of staff from State, Federal and Local agencies with projects in or technical
             information on the Southern Watershed Area and members of the Local Government
             Advisory Committee for SWAMP held a meeting on March 23, 1995. This meeting
             set the stage for information exchange between the agencies and the LGAC on
             current issues and projects in the Southern Watershed Area. As a result of this
             meeting the SWAMP Committee decided to hold annual meetings to further improve
             the coordination and interaction between the agencies and local governments. The
             HRPDC agreed to facilitate and handle the logistical arrangements for these meetings.
             For a list of state and federal agency activities in the Southern Watershed, See
             Appendix E.

                 Other tasks to improve the coordination between state, federal and local agencies
             include:


                 ï¿½   HRPDC will design and disseminate a survey to all agencies with activities in
                     the Southern Watershed Area to collect information on available data, current
                     and proposed activities, and other resources available. HRPDC will serve as
                     a clearinghouse for this information and will provide it to all members of the
                     SWAMP Committee.


                 ï¿½   Fact sheets and information brochures on water quality and other natural
                     resource information pertaining to the Southern Watershed will be produced
                     and disseminated to public officials, decision makers and the public in general.

                 *   An analysis of the compatibility of water quality data and recommendations
                     for synthesizing and clarifying water quality data sets will be made. Additional
                     research needs will also be identified.



             EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR LOCAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING:


                 The Local Government Advisory Committee for SWAMP identified the need for
             improved water quality monitoring through an education program. This initiative will
             provide the opportunity for elementary, middle and secondary school students to learn
             about water quality and the methods of sampling water for a variety of contaminants.
             This project will also enhance the existing educational programs within the area by
             providing another focus. The following tasks will be accomplished:

                     Design administrative framework for educational monitoring program.
                     Investigate possible organizations to help develop program.



                                                        105









                     Implement pilot project in one school in each city to educate students on
                     water quality monitoring and initiate student monitoring in one waterbody
                     segment in the Southern Watershed Area. Analyze pilot project for points of
                     success and failure. Expand program to more schools.

                     Design educational programs for elementary, middle and secondary schools.
                     Prepare workshops, brochures and pamphlets to educate students in both
                     locality's school systems.

                     Coordinate education program for Southern Watersheds with existing "Clean
                     the Bay Days" and "National Coastal Cleanup" activities.



             TECHNICAL STUDIES FOR CITY OF CHESAPEAKE:


                 The Committee identified the need for specific technical studies for the City of
             Chesapeake. These included a Natural Area Inventory, and updates to the city's soil
             survey and floodplain maps. To address these needs, the following actions or
             initiatives have been taken:


                 e   The Department of Conservation and Recreations Division of Natural Heritage
                     requested funding for a Natural Area Inventory for the City of Chesapeake.
                     The EPA grant was obtained and an "Inventory and Protection Plan for
                     Southeast Virginia's Exemplary Wetlands, Critical Natural Areas and
                     Endangered Species is being conducted. The study period for the project is
                     1994 to 1997.


                 e   The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service
                     has worked with the City of Chesapeake to develop the following proposal for
                     an updated soil survey for the city:

                 *   The project to update the City of Chesapeake Soil Survey (Norfolk County
                     Survey, 1959) would be completed over a three year period. The Project will
                     be a cooperative effort between the following: City of Chesapeake, USDA-
                     Soil Conservation Service, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
                     and Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The final product will consist of
                     a soils database in digital form and manuscript (GIS soils map layer on
                     controlled orthophotoquad base, soils data base, technical descriptions).
                     Virginia State University Center for Excellence plans to run a parallel, wetlands
                     research project which will gather data that will become part of the soils
                     database.


                 *   The City of Chesapeake is working with the Corps of Engineers to update the
                     floodplain maps for the city. This project is anticipated to be complete in the
                     summer of 1995.


                                                       106                   Revised May 17, 1995






























                                        APPENDIX K

                                  EDUCATIONAL BROCHURES





                      1)   A Guide to the Sguthern Wjjtersh?.d Area
                           Management Program

                      2)   Water Quality Conditions: The Southern Watershgds
                           of Virginia fleach and Chesapgake






                                                          nivhwlron


                                                                                                                      MlyrON
                                                                                                                 PLANNING [MVIXICr
                                 r
                                                                               IS A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT
                                                                               COMMISSION, AND IS FUNDED By THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                                                                               ADMINISTRATION. THE VIRGINIA COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ARE4
                                                                               LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.





                                                                      A Guide to
                             The Southern Watershed Area Management Program
                                                                        (SWAMP)


                   What is SWAMP?


                   The Southern Watershed Area
                   Management Program is a joint
                   project of the Cities of Virginia
                   Beach           and           Chesapeake,                                NORFOLK
                   coordinated by the Hampton                                                                    44
                   Roads             Planning             District
                                                                                        RT MOUTH
                   Commission and funded in part by
                                                                                                                    mm
                   the Virginia Coastal Resources
                   Management Program.                        The         DLK
                   Program's purpose is to develop a
                   coordinated management plan for
                   the Southern Watershed Area
                   which           encompasses                 the            Vi1R V11
                                                                          %NORTH CAROL  NA
                   watersheds            of      Back         Bay,
                   Northwest River and the North                                         17                   CURR I TUJCK
                   Landing River.
                                                                                                                68
                                                                                                  CAMDEN
                                                                           158                                                  C
                                                                                                                                 7;
                   The SWAMP process:                                                                                             0
                                                                                                                                  z
                   The Local Government Advisory                                          ELIZABETH CIT
                   Committee for SWAMP consists                            PEMUIVANS              PASQUOTANK
                   of local government technical
                   resource personnel from the Cities                             hERTFORD
                                                                                    A
                   of        Virginia         Beach            and
                   Chesapeake and a representative
                   from the Virginia Dare Soil and'                                                  ALDEMARLESOUND                     N1.
                   Water Conservation District. The                                                                                            r-
                   Local        Government              Advisory
                   Committee            met        consistently









             between February 1994 and March 1995. In an effort to reach consensus on the issues,
             the Committee worked as a team to identify critical watershed problems and priorities.

             Goals and Objectives for management of the watershed area and a coordinated
             management approach for the future were developed. Recommendations for future
             technical studies, research and data needs were also identified in the process. Through
             an iterative consensus building approach with the advisory committee, HRPDC staff
             assisted in the process and served as a link between this project and the large variety of
             activities which are underway in the watershed by federal, state, local and private groups.

             Existing technical studies were examined to try to determine the current conditions in the
             watersheds and identify technical information needs to support improved local government
             management of watershed lands and resources. By working together to analyze current
             conditions and management techniques, the two local governments identified problems
             and solutions, reached consensus on goals and objectives and developed an integrated
             process for managing the area.


             SWAMP Priorities:


             The Local Government Advisory Committee identified the following management priorities
             for the Southern Watershed Area:


             1. Develop Common goals and a shared vision for the Southern Watershed Area.

             2. Provide for multiple uses of waterways and watersheds.

             3. Manage nonpoint sources of pollution.

             4. Number of agencies and in   terests in Southern Watershed Area illustrates need for an
             on-going forum or clearinghouse for information.

             5. Manage competing uses in watershed.

             6. Identify and reduce data gaps to help further the mission statement.



             SWAMP Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives:

             The Local Government Advisory Committee reached consensus on a mission statement,
             goals and objectives for the Southern Watershed Area. These goals and objectives are
             both representative of the Committee's opinions (as a composite of the two local
             governments) and consistent with the Comprehensive Plans of the two local governments.












             MISSION STATEMENT


             Natural Resources, sensitive lands, and water supplies of the
             Southern Watersheds of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake should
             be protected and enhanced.

             GOAL # i:


             WATER QUALITY SHOULD BE PROTECTED AND ENHANCED
             FOR WATER SUPPLIES AND NATURAL RESOURCES
             CONSERVATION.


             Objectives:

             1. Protection of water quality for water supply of the Northwest
             River Treatment Plant.


             2. Achieve improved water quality, stormwater management
             control and flood control through application of local, state and
             federal programs and initiatives.

             3. Study the potential for educational programs for water quality monitoring.

             4. Educate citizens, the development community and public officials on the importance of
             water quality issues including water supply and stormwater.

             GOAL#2:


             PRESERVE OPEN LANDS TO HELP
             PROTECT        AND ENHANCE WATER
             QUALITY:


             Objectives:

             1. Preserve critical edge habitat areas,
             marshes and swamps by application of
             preservation       zoning,       conservation
             easements and any other appropriate
             development incentives.

             2. Educate citizens, the development
             community and public officials on the
             importance of open space, agricultural and
             forested lands and other natural resources.

















                                                                              .J-











              GOAL #3:


              ENSURE COMPATIBILITY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND COMMERCE WITH
              NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTIO               N

              Objectives:

              1. Acquire and develop adequate public and private park land and open space that
              compliments the existing park system.

              2. Encourage appropriate management techniques (such as conservation and water wise
              landscaping, etc.) for public and private recreational facilities for water quality and habitat
              protection.

              3. Coordinate activities and management of inter-coastal waterways with natural resource
              and water quality protection.

              4. Coordinate local activities with state and federal programs such as the North Landing
              Public Access Program and the North Landing River Conservation Program, and so forth.

              Note: For the following goals and objectives, "Southern Watersheds" will be defined as the
              Southern Rural Area for Virginia Beach and the Rural Overlay District for Chesapeake. It
              does not include the entire Southern Watershed Area.


              GOAL # 4:


              THE CHARACTER OF THE, SOUTHERN WATERSHED SHOULD REMAIN RURAL
              WHILE PROVIDING FOR RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT


              Objectives:

              1. Infrastructure improvements within the Southern Watershed should represent those
              necessary to support a rural area, should be consistent with local planning policies, and
              should minimize the increase in impervious surface that prevents groundwater recharge
              and increases salt water intrusion.










              2. Institute good land use management practices and monitoring of land use activities.

              3. Demand created by development should not exceed supply provided by rural
              infrastructure; development should be consistent with local planning policies.

















              GOAL#5:


              AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL ACTIVITIES                  IN THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED
              SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND ENCOURAGED.


              Objectives:

              1. Promote and encourage the preservation
              of agricultural and forestal lands.

              2. Promote agricultural activ  ities and direct
                                                                                              ap
              services to agriculture support services and
              infrastructure.


              3. Support programs that provide practical
              research-based information and training
              regarding environmentally sound and cost-
              effective horticultural, agricultural and forestal
                                                                 T-.@: f                            7
              practices.


              Memorandum of Agreement:

              The Local Government Advisory Committee developed a draft Memorandum of Agreement
              (MOA) which, if adopted would serve as the administrative framework for a coordinated
              management program in the Southern Watershed Area. The draft MOA outlines the
              responsibilities of the two signatory local governments in managing the Southern Watershed









              Area and implementing the consensus goals and objectives. The MOA will help ensure that
              future management decisions in the Southern Watershed Area will be coordinated and
              consistent with adopted policies and goals. The draft MOA is currently under administrative
              review by the Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.

              What is the next step?

              Implementation of the management goals and objectives developed by the Committee is
              the critical next step. Through the development of an on-going process through which the
              two local governments can work together, coordinated and informed decisions will be made
              in the management of the Southern Watershed Area. The Committee identified the
              following research and data needs to support management decisions:

              1. Explore opportunities for additional water quality monitoring.

              2. Encourage compatibility of data.

              3. Review existing data sets to identify data gaps and inconsistencies.

              4. Explore opportunity for Natural Inventory, Soils Survey and update to floodplain maps
              for the City of Chesapeake.

              Preliminary scopes of work to achieve these technical needs have been developed and
              reviewed by the Committee. Educational efforts will play an important role in the
              continuation of the SWAMP project as well as the dedication by the two local governments
              to continue a concerted, cooperative process to jointly manage the Southern Watershed
              Area of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.






                                            WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
                               SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS OF VIRGINIA BEACH
                                                     AND CHESAPEAKE



                            BACKGROUND:


                            The Southern Watersheds of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach include the
                            waterbodies of the Northwest River, the North Landing River, and Back Bay,
                            as well as the many tributaries that lead to those waterbodies. The
                            Southern Watersheds are a valuable resource for the Cities of Chesapeake
                            and Virginia Beach for a multitude of uses including water supply,
                            recreation, commerce, aesthetics, irrigation, habitat support and others.
                            The Southern Watershed contains valuable wetlands and wildlife habitat.
                            Natural area inventories have identified extensive areas of critical habitat for
                            rare and endangered plant and animal species, as well as some of the most
                            diverse and extensive wetlands such as wind tide marshes, forested
                            swamps and pocosins.

                            The Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach have begun a concerted
                            effort to identify water quality issues and address needs and problems
                            within the Southern Watershed Area (SWA). The following information was
                            collected by a Local Government Advisory Committee for the Southern
                            Watershed Area to assist in the development of a cooperative
                            environmental management plan for the region.







                                                                             03








                                                                      Mi.i







                                                GENERAL FACTS ABOUT CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
                                                IN THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA:

                                                    Conditions have been altered in the Southern Watersheds through both
                                                natural phenomena and human activity.

                                                - Point source related water quality problems are relatively few in the
                                                Southern Watersheds. Water quality impairment in the region is primarily
                                                attributable to nonpoint source pollution.

                                                    Nonpoint source pollution is likely to increase as development increases.


                                                                                         EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA



                                                                 Water Quality          Northwest River           North Landing              Back Say
                                                                        Data                                           River

                                                              CWA Swimmable            100% Fully              100% Fully              100% Fully
                                                              Goal                     Supports                Supports                Supports

                                                              Fish Consumption         100% Fully              100% Fully              100% Fully
                                                              Goal                     Supports                Supports                Supports

                                                              Aquatic Ufa Goal         100% Fully              90% Fully Supports      66% Fully Supports
                                                                                       Supports                10% Threatened          34% Threatened
                                                                                                                     (94 Data)

                                                              DO Standard              Yes (From Natural       Minor Violations        Yes (From Natural
                                                              Violations               Conditions)                                     Conditions)

                                                              Elevated Nutrients       Yes (After Storms)      Y93 (From NPS           Yes (Agriculture
                                                                                                               Such as  Animal         and Residential
                                                                                                               Waste and               Areas)
                                                                                                               Fertilizers)

                                                              PH Standard              Yes (92 Data)           ND                      NO
                                                              Violations

                                                              Change in Salinity       Increase in Salinity    NO                      Decline in Salinity
                                                                                       Due to Water
                                                                                       Supply System

                                                              Point Source             5 Minor                 6 Minor                 2 Minor
                                                              Discharges
                                                              Overall Watershed        Medium                  High                    High
                                                              Rating

                                                              Pollution Potential:

                                                                      Agricultural     High                    High                    High
                                                                      Urban            Low                     High                    High
                                                                      Forestry         Low                     Low                     Low
                                                              SAV Population I NO                             NO                       Decline

                                                             Sources:       Virginia water niumity A-utan-nment for 19512 - 19514. 305 (b) Report for
                                                                            EPA and Congress; Rack Ray. Virginia, A Literature Review and
                                                                            gynthpRos of Natural Reqn,gra Status and Trenrig U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                                            Service, September 1994; Albemarle-Pamlico Profiles, HRPDC, 1993.

                                                             Key:           ND = No Data







                           FACTS ABOUT THE NORTH LANDING WATERBODY:


                           - It flows from Great Bridge Locks in Chesapeake through southwestern
                           Virginia Beach to the Currituck Sound.

                           - The waterbody is made up of the North Landing River, the Albemarle and
                           Chesapeake Canal, West Neck Creek, London Bridge Creek, Pocaty River,
                           Blackwater Creek and numerous other canals and ditches.

                           - The River is a vital part of the Intracoastal Waterway.

                           - It drains approximately 71,794 acres of land. The primary land use in the
                           watershed is agriculture.

                           - Based on 1992 data, agricultural activities use 32,164 acres of land and
                           26,164 acres are undeveloped. Developed land occupies 12,997 acres of
                           the watershed.



                           WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO THE NORTH LANDING RIVER?

                           - Water quality problems discovered through monitoring include high
                           concentrations of fecal coliform, nutrients (phosphorous), and metals
                           (manganese and iron).

                           - Most water quality problems stem from nonpoint sources such as animal
                           waste and fertilizers from agricultural and recreational lands.

                             Six minor point source discharges to the River and tributaries have
                           contributed to minor violations of water quality standards for dissolved
                           oxygen (DO) and lead.

                           - The Watershed was given an overall rating of "High" for pollution potential
                           in the Virginia NonRoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Rgport,
                           March, 1993.








                               FACTS ABOUT THE NORTHWEST RIVER WATERBODY:


                               - It flows 13 miles in a southeasterly direction across the City of
                               Chesapeake from near the Dismal Swamp and enters North Carolina at
                               Tull's Bay. It flows another 2 miles before entering Currituck Sound.

                               - The Waterbody includes the mainstern and tributaries from its headwaters
                               in Virginia to the Virginia/North Carolina border, including the Northwest
                               River, Weston Ditch, Northwest Canal, Indian Creek, Smith Creek, and
                               other small creeks and ditches.


                               - It serves as the primary source of drinking water for the City of
                               Chesapeake.

                                 The watershed covers approximately 66,436 acres. The majority of land,
                               nearly 46,356 is primarily undeveloped and is either wetlands or unmanaged
                               forest lands according to 1992 data.

                               - Nineteen ninety-two data indicates that agricultural lands comprise
                               another 16,527 acres and urban activities use only 3,554 acres of land.


                               WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO WATER QUALITY IN THE NORTHWEST
                               RIVER?


                               - It behaves more like a lake than a river due to low current velocity and
                               primarily wind tides. It has been classified as an estuarine body and
                               experiences small tidal fluctuations.

                               - Due to its low flushing ability, concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and
                               nutrients tend to rise after storms. Storms flush nutrients from nearby
                               swamps into the River. When this happens, dissolved oxygen (DO)
                               decreases as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is satisfied.

                               - Other water quality problems monitored include routine violations of the
                               water quality standard for pH. Chloride levels at the municipal water supply
                               intake rise during drought conditions.

                               ï¿½ There are five minor point source discharges to the River.

                               ï¿½ Its watershed was given an overall rating of "Medium"           for pollution
                               potential in the Virginia Non2oint--Source Pollution Watershed Assessment
                               Report, March, 1993.








                            FACTS ABOUT BACK BAY:

                             Back Bay Waterbody encompasses an area from Black Gut at Sandbridge
                            Beach to the state line below Buckle Island including Back Bay, Hell Point
                            Creek, Nawney Creek, North Bay, Beggars Bridge Creek, Shipps Bay,
                            Redhead Bay, Sand Bay, and several unnamed tributaries.

                            - Its watershed is comprised primarily of undisturbed land, protected land
                            which includes 9,795 acres in two national wildlife refuges, a state park and
                            two state waterfowl management areas.

                            - Agricultural land makes up nearly 13,811 acres of the watershed, while
                            only 3,005 acres of land is developed for urban uses.


                            WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO BACK BAY?

                            - Noticeable changes in water quality of Back Bay in the last century and
                            a half have led to a number of water quality studies to address the threats
                            to Back Bay.

                            - Significant changes in fish populations, declines in submerged aquatic
                            vegetation (SAV) and alterations in the resident and winter waterfowl
                            populations, as well as flora and fauna, have been documented. However,
                            there has been a recent noted resurgence of SAV in the Bay.

                              Indications are that Back Bay is becoming more of a freshwater system.
                            Water clarity has declined due to nutrient loading and turbidity from
                            agricultural and urban stormwater runoff and septic systems.

                              Studies show that elevated levels of nutrients are entering the Bay from
                            its tributaries. Recommendations have been made to further identify the
                            sources of nutrients in the tributaries and to begin implementing Best
                            Management Practices to address these problems.

                            - There are two minor point source discharges to Back Bay.

                            - The Back Bay watershed was given an overall rating of "High" for
                            pollution potential in the Virginia Non20int Source Pollution Watershed
                            Assessment Rel2ort, March, 1993.






                            WHAT ARE THE SOURCES FOR WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ON
                            THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA?


                              Water quality monitoring is done on a regular basis, either monthly or
                            quarterly by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ)
                            Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program. Data is collected in the
                            STORET data system and published in DEQs 305 (b) Water Quality
                            Assessment Report biannually.

                              The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) produces
                            the Virginia Nongoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Report
                            which characterizes the state's waters to target nonpoint source pollution
                            protection activities.

                            - Other information can be found in the reports: Back Bay, ViEginia: A
                            Literature Review and Synthesis of Natural Resource Status and Trends,
                            (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994); Albemarle-Pamlico Profiles,
                            (HRPDC, 1992); and Environmental Management Program for the Hampton
                            Roads Virainia Portion of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Watershed,
                            (HRPDC, 1993).


                            WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION ON:


                              WATER QUALITY MONITORING?

                              City of Chesapeake:
                              Department of Public Utilities
                              Northwest River Water Treatment Plant Laboratory
                              3550 South Battlefield Boulevard
                              Chesapeake, VA 23320
                              Phone: (804) 421-2146

                              Region:
                              Department of Environmental Quality
                              Tidewater Regional Office
                              Planning and Permit Support Programs
                              287 Pembroke Office Park
                              Pembroke 2, Suite 310
                              Virginia Beach, VA 23462
                              Phone: 552-1142







                                  Back Bay:
                                     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                     Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
                                     4005 Sandpiper Rd.
                                     Virginia Beach, VA 23456
                                     Phone: (804) 721-2412

                                     LOCAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES IN THE SOUTHERN
                                     WATERSHEDS OF VIRGINIA BEACH AND CHESAPEAKE?


                                     Chesapeake Planning Department
                                     P.O. Box 15225
                                     Chesapeake, VA 23328
                                     Phone: (804) 547-6176

                                     Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
                                     The Regional Building
                                     723 Woodlake Drive
                                     Chesapeake, VA 23320
                                     Phone: (804) 420-8300

                                     Virginia Beach Planning Department
                                     Municipal Center-Operations Building
                                     Virginia Beach, VA 23456
                                     Phone: (804) 427-4899






                                       This brochure was reprinted by the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal Resource
                                     Management Program through Grant #NA370ZO360-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                       Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone
                                                                 Management Act of 1972, as amended.

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



                                                                                                           sklmoso@,




                                                 MPTON RQADS
                                           PIANNING DISTRICT COMNIISSION









                                       WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
                           SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS OF VIRGINIA BEACH
                                              AND CHESAPEAKE



             BACKGROUND:

             The Southern Watersheds of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach include the waterbodies of
             the Northwest River, the North Landing River, and Back Bay, as well as the many
             tributaries that lead to those waterbodies. The Southern Watersheds are a valuable
             resource for the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach for a multitude of uses including
             water supply, recreation, commerce, aesthetics, irrigation, habitat support and others. The
             Southern Watershed contains valuable wetlands and wildlife habitat. Natural area
             inventories have identified extensive areas of critical habitat for rare and endangered plant
             and animal species, as well as some of the most diverse and extensive wetlands such as
             wind tide marshes, forested swamps and pocosins.

             The Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach have begun a concerted effort to identify
             water quality issues and address needs and problems within the Southern Watershed Area
             (SWA). The following information was collected by a Local Government Advisory
             Committee for the Southern Watershed Area to assist in the development of a cooperative
             environmental management plan for the region.







                                             NORFOLK




                                                                        44

                                                       4
                                                                           ..........
                                       RT MOUTH

                       WOO
                                                                               . .... ....






                                                              ........ ...
                                        ..... .tA   F-.:.:.:-
                                                                        .......... ..
                                                -EAK                          ..........


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

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



                          VIRGIIIIAV.:
                        07 T*H* -CA A *0 L I N A









                    GENERAL FACTS ABOUT CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE
                    SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA:


                       Conditions have been altered in the Southern Watersheds through both natural
                    phenomena and human activity.

                       Point source related water quality problems are relatively few in the Southern
                    Watersheds. Water quality impairment in the region is primarily attributable to nonpoint
                    source pollution.

                       Nonpoint source pollution is likely to increase as development increases.



                                                                     EXISTING WATER QUALITY DATA



                                            Water Quality           Northwest River          North Landing              Back Say
                                                   Data                                           River

                                          CWA Swimmable           100% Fully              100% Fully               100% Fully
                                          Goal                    Supports                Supports                 Supports

                                          Fish Consumption        100% Fully              100% Fully               100% Fully
                                          Goal                    Supports                Supports                 Supports

                                          Aquatic Life Goal       100% Fully              90% Fully Supports       66% Fully Supports
                                                                  Supports                10% Threatened           34% Threatened
                                                                                                (94 Data)

                                          DO Standard             Yes (From Natural       Minor Violations         Yes (From Natural
                                          Violations              Conditions)                                      Conditions)

                                          Elevated Nutrients      Yes (After Storms)      Yes (From NPS            Yes (Agriculture
                                                                                          Such as Animal           and Residential
                                                                                          Waste and                Areas)
                                                                                          Fertilizers)
                                          Violations   d          Yes (92 Data)           ND                       ND

                                          Change in Salinity      Increase in Salinity    ND                       Decline in Salinity
                                                                  Due to Water
                                                                  Supply System

                                          Point Source            5 Minor                 6 Minor                  2 Minor
                                          Discharges

                                          Overall Watershed       Medium                  High                     High
                                          Rating

                                          Pollution Potential:

                                                  Agricultural    High                    High                     High
                                                  Urban            ow                     High                     High

                                                 Forestry         Low                     Low                      Low
                                          SAV Population          ND                      ND                   _fDe'cline

                                        Sources:       Virainia Water Quality Assessment for 1992 - 1994, 305 (b) Report for
                                                       EPA and Congress; Rark Ray. Virg*nia* A Literature Review and
                                                       Synthesis of Natural Resource Status and Trends U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                                       Service, September 1994; Albemarle-Pamlico Profiles, HRPDC, 1993.

                                        Key:           ND = No Data









             FACTS ABOUT THE NORTH LANDING WATERBODY:

               It flows from Great Bridge Locks in Chesapeake through southwestern Virginia Beach
             to the Currituck Sound.


             C
               The waterbody is made up of the North Landing River, the Albemarle and Chesapeake
               anal, West Neck Creek, London Bridge Creek, Pocaty River, Blackwater Creek and
             numerous other canals and ditches.


             . The River is a vital part of the Intracoastal Waterway.

             - It drains approximately 71,794 acres of land. The primary land use in the watershed is
             agriculture.

               Based on 1992 data, agricultural activities use 32,164 acres of land and 26,164 acres
             are undeveloped. Developed land occupies 12,997 acres of the watershed.


             WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO THE NORTH LANDING RIVER?


               Water quality problems discovered through monitoring include high concentrations of
             fecal coliform, nutrients (phosphorous), and metals (manganese and iron).
               Most wa,ter quality problems stem from nonpoint sources such as animal waste and
             fertilizers from agricultural and recreational lands.

               Six minor point source discharges to the River and tributaries have contributed to minor
             violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) and lead.

             - The Watershed was given an overall rating of "High" for pollution potential in the Virginia
             Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Report, March, 1993.









              FACTS ABOUT THE NORTHWEST RIVER WATERBODY:


              - It flows 13 miles in a southeasterly direction across the City of Chesapeake from near
              the Dismal Swamp and enters North Carolina at Tull's Bay. It flows another 2 miles before
              entering Currituck Sound.

                The Waterbody includes the mainstem and tributaries from its headwaters in Virginia to
              the Virginia/North Carolina border, including the Northwest River, Weston Ditch, Northwest
              Canal, Indian Creek, Smith Creek, and other small creeks and ditches.

              - It serves as the primary source of drinking water for the City of Chesapeake.

              . The watershed covers approximately 66,436 acres. The majority of land, nearly 46,356
              is primarily undeveloped and is either wetlands or unmanaged forest lands according to
              1992 data.


              0 Nineteen ninety-two data indicates that agricultural lands comprise another 16,527 acres
              and urban activities use only 3,554 acres of land.



              WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO WATER QUALITY IN THE NORTHWEST RIVER?

                It behaves more like a lake than a river due to low current velocity and primarily wind
              tides. It has been classified as an estuarine body and experiences small tidal fluctuations.

                Due to its low flushing ability, concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients tend
              too rise after storms. Storms flush nutrients from nearby swamps into the River. When this
              happens, dissolved oxygen (DO) decreases as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is
              satisfied.

                Other water quality problems monitored include routine violations of the water quality
              standard for pH. Chloride levels at the municipal water supply intake rise during drought
              conditions.


              - There are five minor point source discharges to the River.

              - Its watershed was given an overall rating of "Medium" for pollution potential in the
              Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Report, March, 1993.










                FACTS ABOUT BACK BAY:


                Back Bay Waterbody encompasses an area from Black Gut at Sandbridge Beach to the
                "state line below Buckle Island including Back Bay, Hell Point Creek, Nawney Creek, North
                Bay, Beggars Bridge Creek, Shipps Bay, Redhead Bay, Sand Bay, and several unnamed
                tributaries.


                - Its watershed is comprised primarily of undisturbed land, protected land which includes
                9,795 acres in two national wildlife refuges, a state park and two state waterfowl
                management areas.

                Agricultural land makes up nearly 13,811 acres of the watershed, while only 3,005 acres
                of land is developed for urban uses.



                WHAT ARE THE THREATS TO BACK BAY?


                Noticeable changes in water quality of Back Bay in the last century and a half have led
                to a number of water quality studies to address the threats to Back Bay.

                Significant changes in fish populations, declines in submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
                and alterations in the resident and winter waterfowl populations, as well as flora and fauna,
                have been documented. However, there has been a recent noted resurgence of SAV in
                the Bay. ,


                @
                Indications are that Back Bay is becoming more of a freshwater system. Water clarity
                as declined due to nutrient loading and turbidity from agricultural and urban stormwater
                runoff and septic systems.

                Studies show that elevated levels of nutrients are entering the Bay from its tributaries.
                Recommendations have been made to further identify the sources of nutrients in the
                tributaries and to begin implementing Best Management Practices to address these
                problems.

                -There are two minor point source discharges to Back Bay.

                - The Back Bay watershed was given an overall rating of "High" for pollution potential in
                the Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Report, March, 1993.









             WHAT ARE THE SOURCES FOR WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ON THE
             SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA?

               Water quality monitoring is done on a regular basis, either monthly or quarterly by the
             Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
             Program. Data is collected in the STORET data system and published in DEQ's 305 (b)
             Water Quality Assessment Report biannually.

             N
               The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) produces the Vi[ginia
               ongoint Source Pollution Watershed Assessment Repg-rt which characterizes the state's
             waters to target nonpoint source pollution protection activities.

             - Other information can be found in the reports: Back Bay, Virginia: A Literature Review
             and Synthesis of Natural Resource Status and Trends, (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
             1994); Albemarle-Pamlico Profiles, (HRPDC, 1992); and Environmental Management
             Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
             Watershed, (HRPDC, 1993).



             WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION ON:


               WATER QUALITY MONITORING?


               City of Chesapeake:
               Department of Public Utilities
               Northwest River Water Treatment Plant Laboratory
               3550 South Battlefield Boulevard
               Chesapeake, VA 23320
               Phone: (804) 421-2146

               Region:
               Department of Environmental Quality
               Tidewater Regional Office
               Planning and Permit Support Programs
               287 Pembroke Office Park
               Pembroke 2, Suite 310
               Virginia Beach, VA 23462
               Phone: 552-1142


               Back Bay:
               U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
               Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge
               4005 Sandpiper Rd.
               Virginia Beach, VA 23456
               Phone: (804) 721-2412










             LOCAL GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES IN THE SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS OF
             VIRGINIA BEACH AND CHESAPEAKE?


             Chesapeake Planning Department
             P.O. Box 15225
             Chesapeake, VA 23328
             Phone: (804) 547-6176

             Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
             The Regional Building
             723 Woodlake Drive
             Chesapeake, VA 23320
             Phone: (804) 420-8300

             Virginia Beach Planning Department
             Municipal Center-Operations Building
             Virginia Beach, VA 23456
             Phone: (804) 427-4899







                                                                                                                             NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                             3 6668 14112775 5