Southern Watershed Special Area Management Program Final report

[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,,,-

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

JAMES 17
CITY

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

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

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

� Coordinate stormwater monitoring program with NPDES program in
two cities and FWS in Back Bay.

� 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:

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

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

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

� 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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:

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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:

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.

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,...

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.

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

� 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.

� 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@

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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, 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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

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