[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Task 59 Hampton Roads PDC FINAL PROW FY 1995 SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN - PHASE 11 SOUTHERN WATERSHED SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 11 A0 V. 7 A "7 HXMPTON RQADS TD PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION 617 VS Department Of Commerc OCTOBER 1996 .S75 e V8 140AA coastal Services Center Library 1996 2234 South Ijobson Avenue Charleston, SC 29405-2413 -HAMPTON'ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON DR. ALAN P. KRASNOFF GORDON'C. HELSEL, JR. W. JOE NEWMAN VACANCY CLARENCE: V.'CUFFEE PORTSMOUTH FRANKLIN J. THOMAS BENN, III ROBERT-E. HARRELL RONALD W-. MASSIE ROWLAND L.,TAYLOR P. WARD ROBINETT, JIT. -GLOUCESTER COUNTY SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY GRAHAM C. 13LAKE MICHA EL-W. JOHNSON' WILLIAM, H. 'WHITLEY :'CHARLETON W. SYKES HAMPTON SUFFOLK ..JAMES L. EASON MARIAN B. ROGERS DR. MAMIE- E. LOCKE, MYLES E. STANDISH ROBERT J. O'NEILL, JR. VIRGINIASEACH ISLE OF WIGHT'COUNTY JOHN A. BAUM W. DOUGLAS CASKEY-', LINWOOD 0. BRANCH, III 'ROBERT C. ^CLAUD, SR. W. W., HARRISON, JR. LOUIS R. JONES JAMES CITY COUNTY MEYERA E. OBERNDORF DAVID L. SISK NANCY K. PARKER .-SANFORD B. WANNER: JAMES K. SPORE' .,.NEWPORT NEWS WILLIAMSBURG CHARLESC.IALLEN JACKSON tC. TUTTLE, 11 JOE S. FRANK JEANNE ZEIDLER EDGAR-E. MARONEY YORK COUNTY NORFOLK SHEILA S. NOLL MAS ON C. ANDREWS,, M.D.' DANIEL M..'STUCK HERBE RT M. COLLINS,- SR. PAUL D.'.FRAIM DOAN S.'HESfER JAMES B OLIVER, JR'., *EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE- MEMBER PROJECT STAFF ARTHUR L. COLLINS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY JOHN M.CARLOCK DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING ERIC j. WALBERG PHYSICAL PLANNER JOYCE M. COOK, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE -$U Ppqgt FRANCES D. HUGHEY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ROBERT C. JACOBS DIRECTOR'OF GRAPHIC PRINTING SERVICES MICHAEL R. LONG GIRAPHICS TECHNICIAN 11'. JOSEPH L. MARHEFKA, GRAP HICS TECHNICIAN 11 RACHAEL V. PATCHETT. REPROGRAPHIC SUPERVISOR SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 11 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 Number NA570ZO561-01 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies. Preparation of this report was included in the HRPDC Work Program for FY 1995-1996, approved by the Commission at its Executive Committee Meeting of March 18,1995, and the HRPDC Work Program for FY 1996-1997, approved by the Commission at its Executive Committee Meeting of March 20,1996. PREPARED BY HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION OCTOBER 1996 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IPYOpe Sly Of NOAA Coastal ervices Center Library I i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 11. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEES ..................... 1 A. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE .................... 1 B. WATER QUALITY TASK FORCE ................................. 2 Ill. MAJOR PROJECT INITIATIVES ..................................... 4 A. SOUTHERN WATERSHED AGENCY SURVEY ...................... 4 B. FURTHER REFINEMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION .............. 4 C. RECOMMENDATIONS ON ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL STUDIES ........ 7 D. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION .................................... 8 E. PUBLIC EDUCATION .......................................... 9 F. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS .......................... 9 G. INTERGOVERNMENTAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE ............... 10 H. INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH NORTH CAROLINA .............. 10 IV. FUTURE PLANS ................................................ 11 APPENDIX A - ANALYSIS OF THE WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK IN THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA .................... 13 APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED AGENCY SURVEY .............................................. 38 APPENDIX C - MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN VIRGINIA BEACH AND CHESAPEAKE ..................................... 59 SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PHASE 11 FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION Through Phase 11 of the Southern Watershed Area Management Program (SWAMP), the Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, working with the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, have been able to build upon the cooperative accomplishments made in Phase I of the project. The first phase of the project was largely focused on creating a framework for the two cities to work together. This was accomplished through the creation of a set of goals and objectives for management of the Southern Watershed Area (SWA) and a Memorandum of Agreement that was signed in the fall of 1995. In Phase 11 progress has been made in several different areas including the completion of a survey of agencies working in the Southern Watershed Area, the creation of a Water Quality Task Force and efforts to implement the goals and objectives created in Phase 1. In addition, the foundation for Phase III of the project has been established. Phase III will involve increased community participation and education. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEES A. Local Govemment Advisory Committee: Throughout Phase 11 of the project the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) has continued to guide the Southern Watershed Area Management Program. In monthly meetings representatives from the planning, public works, public utilities and agriculture departments in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach discuss and analyze issues pertaining to the SWA. These meetings have resulted in an improved understanding of the problems facing the SWA and insight into possible solutions. The LGAC has also worked together to define the mission of the Water Quality Task Force and to develop a scope of work for the next phase of SWAMP. One of the most valuable aspects of SWAMP is the forum that it provides for discussion between representatives of the two Cities of issues that affect the SWA. The monthly meetings foster a degree of communication between the two localities that would not occur otherwise. Although it is difficult to quantify the impact of these discussions on the formulation of policy or the functioning of programs in the two localities, it is safe to say that the dialog between the two cities has an affect. An example of this is the interaction that has taken place between the SWAMP project and the Comprehensive Plan revision processes that are underway in the two cities. In the case of Virginia Beach a meeting was held to address environmental issues as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clay Bernick, a member of the LGAC, attended the meeting and was able to bring information concerning the goals and objectives of SWAMP to the table. At the meeting several issues pertinent to the SWA were discussed, including the need for controlled burning for habitat management and the desire to link existing preservation areas into a contiguous buffer system. Mr. Bernick reported the results of the Comprehensive Plan meeting back to the LGAC. This information was subsequently integrated into the planning process for the next phase of SWAMP. This example highlights the interaction that is developing between local planning processes and the SWAMP project. B. Water Quality Task Force: The Water Quality Task Force (WQTF) was created to analyze existing water quality data, critique the existing monitoring network and make recommendations on future actions. The Task Force includes representatives from the Department of Environmental Quality, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Conservation and Recreation/Division of Natural Heritage, The Nature Conservancy, Back Bay Restoration Foundation, Department of Conservation and Recreation/Division of Soil and Water Conservation, the Hampton Roads Sanitation District and the Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. The first meeting took place on February 23, 1996. The goals for the first meeting were as follows: Evaluate existing water quality data and determine its sufficiency for identifying current water quality problems and pollution sources in the Southern Watershed Area. Determine if the existing data set is sufficient to answer critical watershed management questions. Identify deficiencies and gaps in the existing water quality data. The gaps could be due to a wide variety of reasons, including geographic areas with insufficient monitoring or incompatibility between data sets due to different collection methods or research goals. Outline a process for creating a data set that is sufficient to improve understanding of the linkages between land use patterns and water quality in the SWA. Specific areas of interest include the creation of a more extensive water quality monitoring network, creation of a common repository for water quality data and improved communication and coordination between agencies performing water quality testing and research in the SWA. 2 The first meeting began with representatives from Virginia Beach and Chesapeake providing an overview of land use trends and significant planning issues in the SWA. Then representatives from each of the participating organizations provided a synopsis of the water quality monitoring and data analysis activities that they are involved in. The meeting ended with discussion of cause and effect relationships between land use patterns and water quality in the SWA. The general conclusions of the meeting are as follows: Sufficient information does not yet exist to fully understand the linkages between land use activities and water quality. However, several studies currently under way will provide additional insight. Existing monitoring programs are targeted at a variety of different goals and the coordination between the programs is not strong enough. It was pointed out that while the land use/water quality linkages are not well understood in the SWA, data from studies of structural and nonstructural BMPs in other regions may be applicable to the SWA. Following the first meeting the HRPDC staff collected and analyzed information on the monitoring practices of the agencies on the Task Force. This analysis resulted in a set of matrices and maps that summarize the aggregate monitoring network. A copy of the tables and matrices is included in Appendix 1. The second meeting of the Task Force took place on May 1-4, 1996. The HRPDC staff presented the results of the research into water quality monitoring in the Southern Watershed Area. The presentation featured a set of maps showing the location of water and sediment sampling sites, a table describing the parameter sets analyzed by various agencies, a set of tables describing the details of the monitoring programs in each subwatershed in the SWA, and a set of matrices that provide an element by element comparison of each parameter set. This analysis resulted in an improved understanding of the interrelationships and overlaps in the existing monitoring programs. After the presentation the group discussed future direction for the monitoring programs. The discussion yielded a consensus that a detailed statistical analysis of the existing water quality data sets is needed to provide insight into land use/water quality relationships and the design of future monitoring programs. (Note: The first step in this analysis has been included in the work plan for the next phase of SWAMP) 3 MAJOR PROJECT INITIATIVES A. Southern Watershed Agency Survey: At the direction of the Local Government Advisory Committee the HRPDC staff completed a survey of 24 agencies working in the SWA. The survey was designed to answer the following questions: 0 What are the research and regulatory programs underway in the SWA? 0 Who maintains what information on the SWA? 0 Which agencies are working together? 0 What are the information needs of agencies working in the SWA? 0 How can data consistency and interagency coordination be improved? The responses to the survey varied from multi-page typewritten documents to handwritten notes. In order to facilitate better understanding of the responses a set of single page summaries was prepared. Each summary sheet contains a listing of programs that the agency is involved in, the data bases that the agency maintains and a section dealing with interagency communication. The summary sheets are included in Appendix 11. B. Further Refinement of Watershed Management Goals and Strategies for Implementation: In Phase I of SWAMP a set of goals and objectives for management of the SWA were developed. Two of the tasks outlined for Phase I I were the refinement of the goals and objectives and the development of strategies for their implementation. Through a series of discussions and meetings the LGAC and the WQTF have worked towards the development of strategies for the implementation of the goals. As a result of this process the goals and objectives have been sharpened and more completely defined. The following are examples of both the refinement of the goals and the development of plans for implementation. Goal A: Water Quality should be Protected and Enhanced for Water Supplies and Natural Resource Conservation. Through the work of the Water Quality Task Force the following conclusions have been reached: 4 A solid understanding of the linkages between the land use patterns and water quality in the SWA does not yet exist. The LGAC and the WQTF will continue to work together to develop a better understanding of the existing water quality data sets with the long range goal of improving the monitoring network and ultimately the understanding of water quality issues in the SWA. Despite the lack of a sufficient understanding of the land use/water quality link, there are many proven and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can be applied now in the SWA to protect water quality. The investigation of water quality issues has been an iterative process where the analysis of existing programs and technical data has lead both to a refinement of goals and to improved insight into how to implement the existing goals and objectives. Goal B: Preserve Open Lands to Help Protect and Enhance Water Quality: Several opportunities are being investigated including linking existing preservation areas in the SWA and establishing a buffer and corridor system to preserve habitat and insure that management options such as the use of controlled burns remain viable. Goal C: Ensure Compatibility of Recreational Activities and Commerce with Natural Resource Protection: Efforts in this area include the investigation of options for nature based tourism and other forms of sustainable economic development and the discussion of the possibility of a visitor center in the SWA to support educational and recreational programs. Phase I I I of SWAMP will include a study of several possible sustainable economic development initiatives. Goal D: The Character of the Southern Watershed Area Should Remain Rural while Providing for Rural Residential Development: The LGAC has discussed this issue extensively. Both Virginia Beach and Chesapeake consider preservation of the rural character of the SWA to be a high priority, and this will be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan revisions underway in both Cities. Phase III of SWAMP will include a study of development controls intended to preserve rural character in rapidly developing areas. Examples from both inside and outside the State of Virginia will be compared with the development controls currently in use in the SWA. Goal E: Agricultural and Forestal Activities in the Southern Watershed should be Sustained and Encouraged: The discussion and investigation of sustainable economic development initiatives has included agricultural and forestal activities as a focus. The Phase III study of this topic will include an investigation of organic farming as a method of both preserving agriculture and protecting water quality in the SWA. Although not directly related to the current SWAMP project, the Virginia Beach Agriculture Reserve Program is an important initiative that will be integrated into SWAMP where possible. Other Examples of Implementation of the Goals and Objectives Developed in Phase 1: In many cases the actions of the individuals participating in the LGAC and the research and analysis produced by the SWAMP project have an impact on local programs and policy. The following are examples of this phenomenon: Federal resource agencies paid special attention to the SWAMP program as a part of the environmental review associated with the Virginia Department of Transportation's Route 168 project in Chesapeake. The SWAMP program was viewed as an indicator of the City's commitment to protecting water quality and the control of secondary impacts associated with the roadway. SWAMP has fostered a heightened awareness of the importance of the SWA in Chesapeake. The implications of the program and references to the MOA have been included in the review of development projects in the watershed. SWAMP has lead to healthy debate over the appropriateness of some land use decisions. SWAMP has lead to enhanced communication between Chesapeake and Federal agencies managing the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and has lead to an inclusion of the Dismal Swamp in comprehensive planning efforts. 6 By attending the LGAC and WQTF meetings, public works employees in both cities who work with the NPDES stormwater monitoring programs have been able to interact with state and federal agencies who are monitoring water quality in the SWA. This communication should lead to tighter coordination between the monitoring programs in the future. As a result of the work of the WQTF the HRPDC staff is looking into the possible redeployment of the automated monitoring equipment used by USFWS in its Back Bay stormwater monitoring program. C. Recommendations on Additional Technical Studies: To assist in implementing the goals, a number of additional technical studies were identified by the LGAC. The LGAC recommended that the following studies be pursued as priorities. Statistical analysis of the existing water quality data: The overarching goal of this study will be to produce an improved understanding of water quality trends in the SWA. To accomplish this the consultants hired for the job will attempt to combine the water quality data from all of the agencies testing in the SWA into one large set and then analyze that aggregate set to determine if significant trends exist. It is likely that due to differences in testing methodologies and quality control that only a subset of the information will be suitable for analysis. If this is the case then the consultants will be asked to identify the significant differences in the data sets so that compatibility issues can be successfully addressed in the configuration of future monitoring programs. The specifics of the analytic process will be determined by an interdisciplinary team assembled from local, state and federal agencies working in the SWA. Analysis of Development Controls: Zoning codes, subdivision ordinances, site plan regulations, and related land use and environmental management regulations will be critical factors in determining the type of development that takes place in the SWA. These development controls will be analyzed to determine their ability to protect water quality and critical habitat. Comparisons will be made to development controls that effectively protect critical habitat in other geographic areas. The results of this analysis will be used as these regulations are revised in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. Research of Options for Sustainable Economic Development: Demonstration of the economic value of the unique natural features of the 7 SWA is a critical factor in their preservation. Several options for sustainable economic development will be examined including nature tourism, agricultural tourism, and organic farming. Aspects of nature tourism that will be examined include the possible creation of canoe trails, a visitors center, and a tour guide training program. In addition, options for growing and marketing organic produce will be explored. D. Problem Identification: Through a series of discussions and analytic studies both the LGAC and the WQTF identified problems facing the Southern Watershed Area. By far the most vexing problem is the continued increase in development pressures. In both Virginia Beach and Chesapeake the SWA has become the primary growth area. Several factors have combined to create this problem. The following is a partial list of the factors: Oceana Naval Air Station will expand in the near future. An EIS evaluating the proposed expansion is in progress. The addition of new personnel at Oceana is likely to increase the development of new housing in the SWA. The Southeastern Parkway and Greenbelt is projected to be constructed in the near future. It will run from Oceana Naval Air Station to Chesapeake. Ultimately, the plans call for a connection to Interstate 464. The bulk of the new development in Virginia Beach is taking place in the northern portion of the Southern Watershed Area (SWA). This is an east/west band through the middle of the City. Many types of development are taking place, including a 20,000 seat amphitheater, golf courses, and new office and retail buildings including a Super Walmart and a Super Target store. In the Greenbrier section of Chesapeake, the TransAmerica project is in the development approval phase. This is a significant project that will include residential, office, and commercial uses. There are many environmental concerns associated with this project. The Great Bridge section of Chesapeake is characterized by rapid development, suburban sprawl, and strain on existing infrastructure. Southern Chesapeake: There is a high demand in the southern part of City for large lot development. The planning 8 department is looking at rural clustering as a method of dealing with the development pressure. The Fentress area of Chesapeake: This area will likely see increased military activity as a result of expansion at Oceana. Fentress is zoned for light industrial development. The Route 168 bypass and improvements to Route 168 south will have a large impact on development patterns in the SWA. Chesapeake plans to limit new development to nodes at interchanges. The completion of the Lake Gaston pipeline will supply needed water to the region and will likely be a factor in increasing development in the SWA. The next phase of the SWAMP project will directly address the growth issue through a stakeholder workshop and research into development controls. E. Public Education: In March of 1996 the HRPDC staff briefed the Area VI Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District on the SWAMP project. In August the HRPDC staff presented the Back Bay Restoration Foundation with an overview of the SWAMP project and answered the groups questions on the Southern Watershed Area. View graphs from these presentations are available. In addition, the matrices and tables analyzing the water quality monitoring network in the SWA that were developed for the WQTF are available for public education. F. Intergovernmental Agreements: Memorandum of Agreement between Chesapeake and Virginia Beach: The MOA between the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach was executed on October 10, 1995 in Chesapeake and September 26, 1995 in Virginia Beach. The final version of the MOA calls for the appointment of a Southern Watershed Coordinator for each city, institution of a staff-level process for cooperative environmental management of the Southern Watershed, the development of educational materials, and co*ntinued technical water quality studies. In addition, the MOA establishes the mission statement, goals and objectives developed in Phase I of SWAMP 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 SWA. A copy of the signed MOA is included in Appendix Ill. 9 G. Intergovernmental Information Exchange: As a result of the MOA the LGAC has established a process by which information on significant new land development projects in the two cities is exchanged during the monthly meetings. Significant projects are those which do not follow the provisions of the Comprehensive Plans or are adjacent to the shared border of the two cities. H. Information Exchange with North Carolina: Two North Carolina Basin Plan Meetings were held in Ahoskie and Elizabeth City on July 25, 1996. These meetings were part of a follow up to the Albemarle/Pamlico Estuarine Study. HRPDC staff attended the meetings and reported the proceedings to the LGAC. The meeting in Ahoskie focused on the Chowan River Basin and the Elizabeth City meeting was one of two meetings on the Pasquotank Basin. The format for both meetings was the same. The first half of each meeting involved presentations by local and state planning staff and local citizens on water quality issues and the structure of the basinwide planning process. The second half of each meeting consisted of group discussions of priority water quality issues. Meeting attendees were given the opportunity to voice concerns and identify specific water quality issues. The input from each group will be summarized by North Carolina Division of Water Quality staff and distributed to attendees. In addition, HRPDC staff and a representative from Chesapeake attended the Corps of Engineers Canal #2 Meeting that took place on July 25, 1996 in Currituck County, NC. The purpose of the meeting was to identify potential issues associated with the operation of Canal No. 2 and its impact on Currituck Sound. Those issues and available documentation of those issues are to serve as the basis for a COE study of Canal No. 2 under the authority of Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. That section allows the COE to reexamine COE projects that do or are perceived to be having a negative environmental impact and to develop a mitigation project addressing those impacts. Canal No. 2, a COE project, is perceived to be having a negative impact on fisheries in the Sound due to rising salinity levels. It is thought, and some documentation exists to support this, that Canal No. 2 allows higher salinity water to move from the Lynnhaven system to the Currituck system during periods of northeast wind. This is attributable in part to the increase head on water flowing south due to the higher tide range in the Lynnhaven. A USGS study conducted during the early 1990s provides some corroboration of the perception that higher salinity waters due flow south, past the West Neck Road bridge. This study is to be completed in late 1996 and be may be followed by a more comprehensive study. 10 IV. FUTURE PLANS: The following activities have been identified as priorities for Phase III of SWAMP. Achieve stakeholder consensus on a shared vision for the SWA that protects significant natural and cultural resources: One of the key elements of the next phase of the SWAMP project will be the development of a shared vision for the future of the Southern Watershed Area. The Local Government Advisory Committee developed a set of goals and objectives for the SWA during Phase I of SWAMP. The goals include the protection of water quality, preservation of open lands, and preservation of the rural character of the SWA. The consensus building process will provide an opportunity to develop a framework for achieving these goals. This process is particularly timely in that both Virginia Beach and Chesapeake are in the process of updating their comprehensive plans. The vision developed through this process will be refined and focused in the subsequent years of the grant. Lay the foundation for new. and enhanced enforceable policies that protect significant natural and cultural resources while encouraging sustainable economic development: The SWA is facing intense development pressures. Both cities are in the process of attempting to balance the impacts of development and resource protection. Through the previously mentioned consensus building process, it should be possible for phase III of SWAMP to provide valuable insight on opportunities for sustainable economic development and workable solutions to the problems posed by new development. In the subsequent years of the grant, specific enforceable policies will be developed to aid in the preservation of cultural and natural resources in the SWA. In many cases, these efforts will dovetail with efforts already initiated by the two cities. As an example, the City of Chesapeake has a review of its subdivision ordinance in its work plan. Phase III of SWAMP will include research on subdivision ordinances that have been successful in protecting the rural character of other geographic areas. This information will feed into the decision making process in Chesapeake. The combination of research and consensus building with citizens, elected officials, the development community, and other groups will influence the development and refinement of enforceable policies. As phase III of SWAMP progresses, it will be possible to specifically enumerate the enforceable policies that will be pursued. Explore options for nature tourism and other forms of sustainable economic development in the SWA: The focus of this research will be on the identification of forms of economic development that support the goals of habitat and water quality protection. Opportunities for canoeing, birding, hiking, hunting, fishing, and biking will be explored. In addition, possibilities for a visitor center and canoe launch sites will be examined. The application of organic farming and other forms of sustainable agriculture to the SWA will be studied. Provide insight into water quality trends in the SWA: Existing data will be analyzed to determine water quality trends. The results of this research will be used to evaluate the existing monitoring network, identify water quality problem areas, and inform future decisions on land use policy in the SWA. Increase public awareness of the SWA as an economic and natural resource: Provide opportunities for public involvement in recreational and educational programs in the SWA. Southern Watershed Festival: A Festival to promote public awareness of the natural resources in the SWA. The Festival will emphasize several themes including the potential economic benefit of protecting the natural resources in the SWA, recreational opportunities, and education on the detrimental effects of inappropriate land use and development patterns. 12 I I I I I I APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS OF THE WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK I IN THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA I I I I I I I I I I I I I PARAMETER SETS DEQ: The following are the parameter sets used by DEQ for water quality testing. All of the tests are performed on water obtained through grab samples with the exception of the last two sets of tests which are performed on sediment samples. FIELD: Field measurements of Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature, Salinity, Conductivity, and pH NUT: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Phosphorus, Ortho-phosphate, Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate NMEI: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chloride, Sulfate, Conductivity, Total Solids, Fixed Solids, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS), Fixed Suspended Solids (FSS), pH, Alkalinity, Turbidity NME5: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Hardness NMEE12: Total Solids, Volatile Solids, Fixed Solids, TSS, VSS, FSS, Turbidity FCMF: Fecal Coliform Membrane Filter CHLa: Chlorophyll a and Phaeophyton MET8: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Zinc METI S: Sediment Metals: Antimony, Aluminum, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium, Zinc PES IS: Sediment Pesticides: Total PCBs, Pentachlorophenol, Dieldrin, Total Chlordane, Total DDT, Total DDE, Total DDD, Endrin, Toxaphene, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, Dicofol (Kelthane), Aldrin USFWS: The following section contains the water quality parameters analyzed by USFWS. These tests are performed on samples obtained during storm events by automated sampling devices. Dry weather samples are taken for comparison to wet weather samples. For ease of comparison, the USFWS test parameters have been grouped in sets that are similar to those used by DEQ. The set names are the same as those used by DEQ but have been prefixed with "us". USNUT: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Phosphorus, Ortho Phosphate, Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate USNMEI: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS), Turbidity 14 USCHLa: Chlorophyll a USSED: Sediment Metals: Aluminum, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Magnesium, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Strontium, Thalliurn, Vanadium, Zinc. Sediment Pesticides: Total PCBs, Endrin, Toxaphene, Heptachlor Epoxide, Hexachlorobenzene, Chlordane, Oxychlordane, DDD, DDE, Mirex, Atrazine, Alachlor, Metachlor. Also included in this set: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorphenoxy Herbicides, Microtox Bioassay, Sago Pondweed Bioassay, Amphipod Bioassay. HRSD: HRSD takes automatic flow weighted composite samples of runoff from the Progress Farm and manual grab samples from Scopus Creek and Lake Tecumseh. HRSD I: Runoff from Progress Farm: Organic Nitrogen, Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Total Phosphorus, pH, BOD, TSS, Fecal Coliform, Fecal Strep. HRSD2: Grab Samples: Depth, DO, Temperature, pH, Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Total Phosphorus, Ortho Phosphorus, BOD, TSS, Chlorophyl a, Pheophytin, Copper, Cadmium, Mercury, Lead CHESAPEAKE PUBLIC WORKS: CPW will sample stormwater runoff at five locations using automatic samplers. CHES1: Flow, TSS, TDS, BOD, COD, Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Phosphorus, Nitrate, Nitrite, TKN, Total Ammonia, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Zinc. VIRGE41A BEACH PUBLIC WORKS: VBPW will sample stormwater runoff at one location in the Southern Watershed Area using an automatic sampler. VBI: Flow, TSS, TDS, BOD, COD, Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Phosphorus, Nitrate, Nitrite, TKN, Total Ammonia, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Zinc. 15 CHESAPEAKE PUBLIC UTILITIES: CPU collects grab samples at two locations on the Northwest River, one location at Tulls Bay, and one at Currituck Sound. The first four parameter groups all apply to samples taken at the water treatment intake on the Northwest River. Parameters in CPU I are measured daily, CPU2 weekly, CPU3 monthly, and CPU4 quarterly. Parameters in CPU5 are measured weekly on samples taken at locations other than the intake. CPUl: Turbidity, Total alkalinity, pH, True color, Total and Fecal Coliform, Total Hardness, Iron, conductivity, Temperature, Chloride, DO, Manganese, Rainfall CPU2: TOC, Sodium, Aluminum CPU3: TDS CPU4: THM, Giardia, Crypto, CPU5: Chlorides, pH, Temp. NORFOLK PUBLIC UTILITIES: NPU takes grab samples once a month at Stumpy Lake. NORFOLKI: Temperature, Chlorophyll a, Algae, Total and Fecal Coliforms, Heterotrophic Plate Count, pH, True color, Turbidity, Alkalihityj TDS, TSS, Ortho-Phosphate, Total Phosphate, DO, TKN, Total Iron, Manganese, UV Absorbance, Trihalomethane Formation Potential, Secchi Disk, Nitrate, TOC 16 NORTHWEST RIVER: MAIN STEM Monitoring Agenc Monitoring Agency Collection Parametei Location Location Method Route 629 DEQ Intake Chesapeake Grab Samples CPUI Bridge Public Utilities CPU2 CPU3 CPU4 mouth of Creek VGIF Panther Landing Chesapeake Grab Samples CPU5 Public Utilities Tull Bay Chesapeake Grab Samples CPU5 Public Utilities Adjacent to Hell USFWS Route 168 DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NU Point Golf Bridge taken with NME 1, W Course bucket FCMF MET8, ME' L PESIS NORTHWEST RIVER: INDLkN CREEK BACKBAY: Monitoring Agen Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Location Location Method Runoff from HRSD Indian Creek DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NU Progress Farm Road Bridge taken with NME 1, MN bucket FCMF Scopus Creek HRSD MET8, ME PESIS LakeTec,im eh MD 17 BACK BAY: HELL POINT CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Route 629 DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Bridge taken with NME1, MIAE5, bucket FCMF MET8, METIS, Annually PESis Mouth of Creek VGIF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Quarterly taken writh NME1, M[ME5P bucket FCMF, CHLa MET8, MIETI S, Annually PESis Adjacent to Hell USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by Point Golf event triggered USNME1, rain events Course samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6/95, dry weather control samples BACK BAY: LAKE TECUMSEH AND SCOPUS CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency. Runoff from BRSD Automatic flow BRSD I Two times per Progress Farm weighted quarter composites Scopus Creek BRSD 'Grab samples BRSD2 June and August of each year Lake Tecumseh HRSD Grab samples BRSD2 August of each year 18 BACK BAY: SH[PPS BAY Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Off Little Island VGIF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Quarterly taken with NlvEl, MME5, bucket FCMF,CHLa MET8, METI S, Annually PESIS BACK BAY: SAND BAY Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency East of Ragged VGIF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Quarterly Island taken with NME1, MME5, bucket FCMF,CHLa MET8, I@MTI S, Annually PESIS Greenhill USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by (Eastern Shore event triggered USNMEI, min events of Back Bay) samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6195, dry weather control samples Refuge Dock USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by (Eastern Shore event triggered USNME1,, rain events of Back Bay) samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6/95, dry weather control samples 99 d Island USFWS Box corer USSED 4/91-5/91 (Sediment Sample) 20 BACK BAY: SEUPS BAY Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Con ction Location F Method Frequency Off Little Island VGIF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Quarterly taken with NME1, NSE5, bucket FCI@9, CHLa I@ET8, METlS, Annually PESlS BACK BAY: SAND BAY Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency East of Ragged VGIF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Quarterly Island taken with NME1, MNM5, bucket FCMF,CHLa MET8, METI S, Annually PESIS Greenhill USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by (Eastern Shore event triggered USNME1, rain events of Back Bay) samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6/95, dry weather control samples- Refuge Dock USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by (Eastern Shore event triggered USNME1,, rain events of Back Bay) samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6/95, dry weather control samples Ragge Island USFWS Box corer USSED 4/91-5/91 (Sediment Sample) 20 BACK BAY: BEGGARS BRDDGE CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Muddy Creek BBRF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road below taken with NME12, FCMF Dawley's bucket CHLa Quarterly Comer MET8, METI S, Annually PESIS Adjacent to USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by Muddy Creek event triggered USNME1, rain events Road Bridge samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6/95, dry weather control samples Mouth of reek USFWS Box corer USSED 4/91-5/91 (Sediment Sample) BACK BAY: BEGGARS BREDGE CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Muddy Creek BBRF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road below taken with NIME 12, FCMF Dawley's bucket CHLa. Quarterly Comer MET8, MET1S, Annually PESIS Adjacent to USFWS Automated rain USNUT, As triggered by Muddy Creek event triggered USNME1, rain events Road Bridge samplers USCHLa between 7/94 - 6195, dry weather control samples Mouth of Creek USFWS Box corer USSED 4/91-5/91 (Sediment ,[I@aple) NORTH LANDING RIVER: MAIN STEM Monitoring Agency Collection Method Parameter Set Collection Location Frequency Virginia/North DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NME I, Quarterly Carolina Line with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, MET1S, PESIS Annually Milldam Creek DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly with bucket NME5, FCMF I MET8, MET1S, PES1S Annually Blackwater DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Creek with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, METIS, PES IS Annually Route 190, DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Old Pungo with bucket NME5, FCMF Ferry Road MET8, MET1S. PES IS Annually 2 Miles DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Upstream of with bucket NME5, FCMF Route 190 MET8, WTI S, PES IS Annually Pocaty River DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, METIS, PES IS Annually West Neck DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Creek with bucket NMES, FCMF EMET8, MET1S, PES I S-7@ually -24 NORTH LANDING RIVER: MAIN STEM Monitoring Agency Collection Method Parameter Set Collection Location Frequency Virginia/North DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Carolina Line with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, MET1S, PESlS Annually Milldam Creek DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, METIS, PES1S Annually Blackwater DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Creek with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, USTI S, PES IS Annually Route 190, DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Old Pungo with bucket NME5, FCMF Ferry Road MET8, METIS, PES IS Annually 2 Miles DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly Upstream of with bucket NME5, FCMF Route 190 MET8, METIS, PES IS Annually Pocaty River DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly with bucket NME5, FCMF MET8, METIS, PES IS Annually West Neck DEQ Grab samples taken FIELD, NUT, NMEI, Quarterly with bucket NME5, FCMF IETIS, PES IS Annually '24 NORTH LANDING RIVER: POCATY RIVER Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location I Method Frequency US Naval Chesapeake Automatic CHESI Four times per Airfield Fentress Public Works sampler slaved year during Station to a flow meter storm events Blackwater DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Roa d Bridge taken with NME1, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, WTI S, Annually PESIS NORTH LANDING RIVER: BLACKWATER CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Blackwater DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road Bridge taken with NMEI, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, MET1 S, Annually PES1S NORTH LANDING RIVER: MILLDAM CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Blackwater DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road Bridge taken with NMEI, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, WTI S, Annually PESis ..26 NORTH LANDING RIVER: POCATY RIVER Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency US Naval Chesapeake Automatic CHES1 Four times per Airfield Fentress Public Works sampler slaved year during Station to a flow meter storm events Blackwater DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road Bridge taken with NME1, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, METIS, Annually PESIS NORTH LANDING RIVER.- BLACKWATER CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Blackwater DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road Bridge taken with NME1, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, METlS, Annually PESis NORTH LANDING RIVER: MILLDAM CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Location Method Frequency Blackwater DEQ".- Grab samples *FIELD, NUT, Monthly Road Bridge taken with NME1, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, METIS, Annually PESIS F @26 NORTH LANDING RIVER: WEST NECK CREEK Monitoring Agency Collection Paramete Set Collection Location Method Frequency Route 603 BBRF Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Bridge, Indian taken with NlvIE12, FCMF River Road bucket CHLa Quarterly MET8, METI S, Annually PESIS Route 627 DEQ Grab samples FIELD, NUT, Monthly Bridge taken wiffi NME I, MME5, bucket FCMF MET8, METIS, Annually PESIS NORTH LANDING RIVER: SALEM LAKES Monitoring Agency Collection Parameter Set Collection Frequency Location I Method Salem Lakes Virginia Beach Automated VB1 Appro ely 20 storm Detention Public Works sampling events will be monitored Ponds stations during the first two years of operation. @27 AGENCY COMPARISON MATRIX The following tables are organized around the parameter sets used by DEQ for water quality testing. Comparisons are made between all agencies for each parameter sets. In addition, the final table contains comparisons for parameters not contained in any of the DEQ sets. DEQ FIELD SERIES ELEMENT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Virginia Utilities Utilities Beach Public Works Dissolved x Oxygen x x X Temperature X X X X Salinity X Con C vity X X pH X X x x ,28, AGENCY COMTARISON MATRIX DEQ NUTRIENT SERIES ELEhffi'NT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Virginia Utilities Utilities Beach Public Works Total X X X x Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total X x x X Phosphorus Ortho X X X X Phosphate Ammonia X X X Nitrite X x x X X-- X x X x AGENCY COMPARISON MATRIX DEQ NME1 SERIES ELEMENT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Utilities Utilities Virginia Beach Public Works Biochemical X X X X Oxygen Demand (BOD) Chloride X X Sulfate X Conductivity X X Total Solids X Volatile Solids X Fixed Solids X Total X X X X X Suspended Solids (TSS) Volatile X X Suspended Solids (VSS) Fixed X Suspended Solids (FSS) pH X X X X Alkalinity X X Turbidity X X X X AGENCY COMPARISON MATRIX DEQ NMEE12 SERIES ELEN= DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Utilities Utilities Virginia Beach Public Total Solids X Works Volatile Solids X Fixed Solids X Total X X X X Suspended Solids (TSS) Volatile X X Suspended Solids (VSS) Fixed X Suspended Solids (FSS) Turbidity X X X X AGENCY COMPARISON MATRIX DEQ FCAN SERIES ELEMENT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Virginia Utilities Utilities Beach Public Works Fecal x x Coliform x X@l AGENCY COMPARISON MATRIX DEQ CHLa SERIES ELEMENT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Virginia Utilities Utilities Beach Public Works Chlorophyll a X X x Phaeophyton X x AGENCY COMTARISON MATRIX DEQ MET8 SERIES ELEMENT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Virginia Utilities Utilities Beach Public Works Arsenic x X Cadmium X x x Chromium X X Copper X X X Iron x X Lead x X X Manganese x x x Mercury x x Nickel x Selenium x Zinc X X 34 AGENCY COM[PARISON MATRIX DEQ MET1S SERIES (SEDlME-NT TvOTALS) ELEMENT DEQ USFWS C hesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Virginia Utilities Utilities Beach Public Works Antimony x Alunuinum X x Arsenic X Beryllium X X Cadmium x x Chromium X X Copper X X Iron x x Lead x x ganese, X X Mercury X Nickel X X Selenium X X Silver X x TMlium X X Zinc x X AGENCY COMTARISON MATRIX DEQ PESIS SERIES (SEDIMENT PESTICIDES) ELEMENT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake HRSD Public Public and Utilities Utilities Virginia Beach Public Works Total PCBs X X Pentachlorophenol X Dieldrin X Total Chlordane X Total DDT x Total DDE X Total DDD x Endrin x x Toxaphene x x Heptachlor X Heptachlor x X Epoxide Dicofol. (Kelthane) X Aldrin x AGENCY COMPARISON MATRIX OTHER OVERLAPS ELENM'NT DEQ USFWS Chesapeake Norfolk Chesapeake BRSD Public Public and Utilities Utilities Virginia Beach Public Works True Color x X Total Dissolved Solids X x X Total Coliforms X Z @7 I I I I I APPENDIX B: I SUMMARY OF SOUTHERN WATERSHED AGENCY SURVEY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSE Organization: City of Virginia Beach, Department of Public Works Contact Person: Mr. Ralph Smith, Director SWA Programs: Current: Wet Weather Monitoring for VPDES MS4 Permit, Dry Weather Field Screening for VPDES MS4 Permit. Wet weather field monitoring involves sampling storm water runoff to characterize water quality. Dry weather screening involves detection of illicit discharges and illegal dumping. Past: Wet weather monitoring program began in 1992, but was sporadic until 1994 when quarterly monitoring was started. Future: Continuation of current program. Data Base: Content: Information from wet and dry weather monitoring. Format: GIS and associated data bases. Access Method: Contact Mark Johnson, NPDES Administrator. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction:Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach Department of Planning. Desired Future Contacts: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Needed data for projects in SWA: Storm water quality data, Receiving water quality data, Precipitation water quality data. Suggestions for improvements: All agencies should use standard testing and sampling methods so that data can be compared. 39 Organization: City of Virginia Beach, Agriculture Department. Contact Person: Mr. Louis Cullipher, Director of Agriculture. SWA Programs: Current:Educational and technical services, agricultural reserve program. The agricultural reserve program involves the City purchasing development rights. Past: Supportive role with other agencies. Future: Virginia Beach is funding a dredging study. The Agricultural Advisory Commission requested that the SWA be included in this study. BMPs will be installed on agricultural drainage outfalls when practical. Data Base: Content:No response. Format: No response. Access Method: No response. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Essentially all agencies. Desired Future Contacts: Welcome opportunity to work with all. Needed Data: Water quality data and interpretations, Land use data and trends. Suggestions for improvements: Water quality data should be linked to rainfall. Some samples in the past were not. More data needed from Sandbridge area. 40 Organization: City of Chesapeake, Utilities Department Contact Person: Mr. Frank Sanders SWA Programs: Current: Design phase of the upgrade of the Northwest River Water Treatment Plant. The plant will use reverse osmosis membrane technology and four deep wells (approximately 1,300 vertical feet). Past: We are not a regulatory agency and are not currently performing any research. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Daily tests on raw Northwest River water. Samples are collected at the Route 168 bridge. Weekly testing of chlorides, pH and temperature at two sites along the Northwest River in North Carolina and one site at the Ferry Dock on Currituck Sound. Format: Lotus 123 Access Method: Contact the Water Resources Administrator: 421- 2146 Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: VA Department of Health, VA DEQ, Army Corps, US EPA, USGS. Desired Future Contacts: None Needed Data: Ground water data in Hampton Roads and the Eastern Shore. Surface water data for Northwest River, North Landing River, and Back Bay. Suggestions for improvements: Distribute results of survey to participants, consolidation of data bases maintained by different agencies. 41 Organization: City of Chesapeake, Agriculture Department/ Virginia Cooperative Extension Contact Person: Mr. Richard Rhodes SWA Programs: Current: Farm field tests: On farm tests are conducted for corn, wheat, and soybeans. Weed control, disease control, and cultural practices are evaluated to determine the best methods for producing these crops. Past: Same as above. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Data from farm field tests. Format: Written report. Access Method: Contact Cooperative Extension to obtain a copy of the report. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Virginia Dare Soil and Water Conservation District, No response.CS, Chesapeake Utilities Department. Desired Future Contacts: No response. Needed Data: No response. Suggestions for improvements: No response. 42 Organization: City of Chesapeake, Planning Department Contact Person: Ms. Jaleh Pett SWA Programs: Current:Enforcement of zoning and subdivision ordinances, development of the Southern Chesapeake, Great Bridge, and Greenbrier Area Plans, and development of a City-wide Trails Plan. Also, several major transportation projects including the Raleigh-Norfolk Connector and the Route 168 Bypass. Past: Development of the Comprehensive Plan, Parks and Recreation Plan, City Land Use Plan, and the City Road Plan. Future: Possible agreement with VA Division of Natural Heritage to conduct a natural areas inventory for the City. Data Base: Content: Development statistics. No water quality data. Format: No response. Access Method: Contact Planning Department. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: City of Virginia Beach, HRPDC, Soil and Water Conservation District, Department of Conservation and Recreation. Desired Future Contacts: Work more closely with Virginia Beach Planning Department on projects in SWA- Needed Data: Water quality data that would indicate what pollutants exist in the Northwest River and the source of those pollutants. Better indication of location and type of wetlands in the SWA. Suggestions for improvements: Data should be collected using standard units and uniform testing procedures. Creation of one central database. 43 Organization: Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Habitat Management Division Contact Person: Mr. Randy Owen SWA Programs: Current: Submerged lands: title 28.2 of Code of Virginia, Chapter 12, Virginia Wetlands Act: title 28.2 of Code of Virginia, Chapter 13, Coastal Primary Sand Dunes and Beaches: title 28.2 of Code of Virginia, Chapter 14 Past: Processing ofjoint permit applications for projects in the SWA, including piers, boat ramps, etc. Future: Continued oversight of current programs. Data Base: Content: Joint permit applications requesting authorization to work within the SWA. Limited fisheries landings data. Format: No response. Access Method: Contact Habitat Management Division for permit application data. Written request to Fisheries for landings data. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: VIMS, Army Corps, USFWS, VA Department of Conservation and Recreation, VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, VA Department of Health, VA Department of Historic Resources, Virginia Beach Wetlands Board, Chesapeake Wetlands Board. Desired Future Contacts: Not applicable. Needed Data: Any information on the elevation of ordinary water level in Back Bay, North Landing River, Northwest River, or any tributaries. Suggestions for improvements: No response. .44 Organization: Virginia Dare Soil and Water Conservation District Contact Person: Ms. Julie Bright, District Manager SWA Programs: Current: 1) Administration of the Virginia agriculture BMP cost share program: financial assistance and incentives to install state approved innovative BMPs on agricultural land. 2) Conservation planning: Nutrient management, planning assistance, BMPs. Past: Same as above. Future: Future funding for agricultural BMP cost sharing is questionable for non-Chesapeake Bay areas. Data Base: Content: Soil surveys for Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, and Portsmouth. lEstoric aerial photographs. Soil survey for Norfolk will be completed soon. Format: Soil surveys are bound documents. Access Method: Soil surveys for Chesapeake and Virginia Beach can be viewed at office or ordered by mail, Portsmouth soils data can be viewed at Chesapeake NRCS office and photocopied. Aerial photographs can be viewed at Chesapeake NRCS office. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Virginia Department of Forestry, VC, False Cape State Park, Back Bay Wildlife Refuge, Trojan Waterfowl Management Area, Department of Agriculture: Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. Desired Future Contacts: BRPDC Needed Data: Improved maps and aerial photos, grant sources for agricultural BMPs. Suggestions for improvements: No response. 45 Organization: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Divisions of Natural Heritage, State Parks, and Planning and Recreation Resources. Contact Person: Ms. Caren Caljouw SWA Programs: Current: Hydrologic Assessment and Conservation Program for the North Landing River Preserve System, Resource Management Planning and Implementation for the North Landing River Natural Area Preserve, Wetlands Ecology of Large Ecosystems in the City of Chesapeake, Conservation Planning for the Protection and Management of Natural Areas in Virginia Beach. Past: North Landing River Public Access and Visual Assessment, Natural Area Source Book: a Guide for Land Managers, Scientists, Educators, and Conservation within the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Area, Natural Area Inventories of the City of Virginia Beach, An Inventory and Protection Plan for Southeast Virginia's Critical Natural Areas and Exemplary Wetlands. Future: No response. Data Base: Content: The Division of Natural Heritage tracks information regarding natural heritage resources. Format: Biological Conservation Datasystem: includes manual files, maps, and a computer data base system (AREV program) that links natural heritage resources, their locations, sites, tracts, protection and management information records. Access Method: Lisa Berlinghoff (804) 371-2708, Tim Berry (804) 692-0984 Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, HRPDC, USFWS, DEQ, EPA, TNC, NOAA, Army Corps, VIMS, VDOF, VDGIF, etc. Desired Future Contacts: None additional needed at this time. Needed Data: More comprehensive hydrology/water quality data, land use statistics, summaries of past, current, and future projects of other agencies. 46 Organization: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Contact Person: Roger Everton, Michelle Fults, SWA Programs: Current: Permitting and monitoring as they relate to air, water, and waste activities and UST, LUST, and AST remediation programs. The main project in the SWA is the monitoring station network located in Back Bay and its surrounding tributaries, North Landing River, West Neck Creek, and Northwest River. This network is operated in association with the Back Bay Restoration Foundation and Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Past: Monitoring network, air, water, and waste permits, remediation, water quality assessment. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Water quality monitoring information, location of monitoring stations, VPDES discharges, shoreline surveys, etc. Format: STORET, Foxpro- Access Method: Contact Michelle Fults (804) 552-1142 Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Back Bay Restoration Foundation, DCR. Desired Future Contacts: Any agency with water quality or habitat information that could be used in the preparation of 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Reports or Water Quality Management Plans. Needed Data: Water quality and environmental quality information that would be valuable for the general public. Suggestions for improvements: Publish a list of available reports, data, and contacts every six months. 47 Organization: Virginia Department of Forestry Contact Person: Fred Turck SWA Programs: Current: Debris in stream law: states that it is unlawful to dispose of trash, debris, tree laps, or logs into a creek stream, or river. Water quality law: provides for prevention of sedimentation of Virginia waters by silvicultural activities. Seed tree law: provides for reforestation or conversion to other use of harvested areas which were comprised of 10% or more loblolly or white pine. Past: Same as above. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Records of all timber harvesting activities in the SWA, logging site inspection data, records of voluntary Best Management Practices for logging and reforestation. Format: No response. I Access Method: Written request to any DOF field, district, or regional offices. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: DCR, DGIF Desired Future Contacts: No response. Needed Data: No response. Suggestions for improvements: No response. 48 Organization: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Bureau of District and Landowner Assistance Contact Person: Cindy Linkenhoker, Stormwater Management Engineer SWA Programs: Current: Nutrient management plans for livestock farms. Administered in conjunction with DEQ Virginia Pollution Abatement Permitting process. Past: Research plots for fertilizer and manure application and timing on crops and forages. Future: Hydric soils with subsurface drainage leaching of groundwater nutrients to groundwater. Data Base: Content: Nutrient reductions from nutrient management planning, manure testing, soil nitrate testing, and fertilizer research plots results. Format: No response. Access Method: Contact DCR-DSWC office in Suffolk or central office in Richmond. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: DEQ, NRCS, CFSA, CES, VPISU, City of Virginia Beach, City of Chesapeake, USCOE. Desired Future Contacts: HRPDC Needed Data: No response. Suggestions for improvements:No response. 49 Organization: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Bureau of Urban Programs Contact Person: Cindy Linkenhoker, Stormwater Management Engineer SWA Programs: Current: Virginia Stormwater Management Program: regulates water quality and quantity. Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program. Past: Same as above. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Hydrologic unit maps for entire State, disturbed acreage data for the entire State, number of local storinwater management programs, number of localities operating adequate E&SC programs, approved plans of all state projects. Format: No response. Access Method: Contact DCR-DSWC office in Suffolk or central office in Richmond. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction:DEQ, NRCS, CFSA, CES, VPISU, City of Virginia Beach, City of Chesapeake, USCOE Desired Future Contacts: HRPDC Needed Data:No response. Suggestions for improvements:No response. 50 Organization: HRPDC Contact Person: Eric Walberg SWA Programs: Current: Southern Watershed Special Area Management Program: This project is entering phase H, which will involve the implementation of the goals and objectives formulated in the first phase of the project. A Memorandum of Agreement between the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia has been signed. This agreement will provide a framework for development of a coordinated management program for the Southern Watershed Area. In addition, the Scope of Work for phase II calls for expansion of the Local Government Advisory Committee, creation of a Water Quality Task Force, and examination of land and water use conflicts. Past: Phase I of SWAMP involved the development of a mission statement, goals, and objectives for the Southern Watershed Area. Prior to SWAMP, the HRPDC developed the Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Watershed. Future: Implementation of Phase II of SWAMP. Data Base: Content: Library containing a broad spectrum of water quality and watershed planning documents. Format: Bound reports. Access Method: Visit HRPDC office in Chesapeake. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: All agencies involved in SWAMP survey, private entities, and the State of North Carolina. Desired Future Contacts: Any agency that has Geographic Information System coverages or attribute data for the Southern Watershed Area. . Needed Data: ARC/INFO coverages showing hydrologic features, roads, city boundries, topography, water quality monitoring stations, parcel boundries, and ecosystem boundries would be helpful Suggestions for improvements: Improved communications and data sharing between agencies and groups working in the SWA. 51 Organization: Navel Air Station Oceana, Civil Engineering Department Contact Person: Mr. Brian Hostetter, Natural Resources Manager SWA Programs: Current: Establishment of a 300 acre ecological reserve area (ERA) on the North Landing River at NALF Fentress: The management plan for the ERA will be coordinated with the VA Department of Conservation and Recreation and will be designed to or the North Landing River Natural Area. complement their plan f Past: Provided the City of Chesapeake with a storm water monitoring location. Currently have VPA permit for spray irrigation field at NALF Fentress. Future: None planned. Data Base: Content: VPA permit requirements, biological data for NALF Fentress. Format: No response. Access Method: Written request. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Virginia DEQ, USACOE Desired Future Contacts: No response. Needed Data: Biological Survey Data Suggestions for improvements: Quarterly Newsletter, distribute survey participants names and addresses. 5 2 Organization: United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey Contact Person: Mr. NEchael Focazio, Hydrologist SWA Programs: Current: 1) Hydrologic study of protected wetlands in the North Landing River Basin. This study will determine hydrologic and water chemistry controls on the low salinity marshes, Atlantic White Ceder wetlands,* and pocosines. The study will also determine land use effects on the wetlands. 2) Salty groundwater study: determine the extent and controls on salty ground-water in the deep confined aquifers. 3) Borrow pit reconnaissance study. Past: Ground water flow modeling of deep confined systems, observation well network, stream gage network. Future: Possible study of the shallow ground water resources in Virginia Beach. Data Base: Content: Yearly report listing all ground water levels and stream gage data for all stations in the state. Any water quality data obtained that year is included. Format: Digital or hard copy. Access Method: Call USGS at (804) 278-4750 Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: VA Department of Conservation and Recreation, HRPDC, VA DEQ. Desired Future Contacts: Any who need hydrologic information. Needed Data: Hydrologic, Land Use, Biologic Suggestions for improvements: No response. 53 Organization: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Contact Person: Mr. Gene Crabtree, District Conservationist SWA Programs: Current: Swampbuster provision of the Food Security Act: Discourages landowners from clearing or draining wetlands. Past: Same as above. Wetland reserve program. Future: USDA Water Quality Improvement Project: voluntary approach to improving water quality by using improved management practices. Data Base: Content: Soils information. Format: Electronic database and static maps. Access Method: Request by phone or visit office. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Virginia Dare Soil and Water Conservation District, US Navy, USFWS, TNC. Desired Future Contacts: Any agency or group dealing with natural resources. Needed Data: USGS water data Suggestions for improvements:Meet every four to six months to discuss programs and projects. 54 Organization: United States Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District Contact Person: Mr. R. Harold Jones, Supervisory Environmental Scientist SWA Programs: Current: 1) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US. 2) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act which regulates dredging and the placement of structures in navigable waters of the US. Past: Same as above plus pre-application consultations, jurisdictional determinations, and permit review. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Permit action/enforcement data, Federally listed threatened and endangered species data base. Format: No response. Access Method: Contact R Harold James. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: EPA, FWS, NNTS, DEQ, VAGIF, Cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake Desired Future Contacts: Same as above. Needed Data: Information regarding large projects, subdivisions, etc. at the earliest possible stage of planning. Suggestions for improvements: All data collection should be for a specific purpose or use. 55 Organization: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Virginia Field Office, White Marsh, VA. Contact Person: Stephen Zylstra SWA Programs: Current: The Virginia Field Office provides technical assistance to the US Army Corps of Engineers in the review of projects affecting wetlands and waterways in the Southern Watershed Area. The Service also has advisory and regulatory responsibilities for the management of Federally listed threatened and endangered species. Past: Same as above. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Information on wetlands and endangered species in the SWA. Format: Type and location of wetlands is indicated on 1:24,000 topographic maps. Access Method: Wetlands maps available from USGS. Endangered species information is available in the field office. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Army Corps, EPA, NMFS, NRCS, VDGIF, DEQ, DCR, VMRC, VDOT, VIMS, ODU, BRPDC, City of Virginia Beach, etc. Desired Future Contacts: Contacts initiated as need arises. N eeded Data: Digitized maps showing land use and zoning in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. Additional information on drainage patterns and water quality. Surveys of recent Refuge land acquisitions should be conducted by local experts to identify endangered species. Suggestions for improvements: Regular meetings between agencies involved in the SWA to exchange project information and research data. Making data gathered by different agencies compatible would be helpful. 56 Organization: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of National Wildlife Refuges, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Contact Person: John B Gallegos, Refuge Wildlife Biologist. SWA Programs: Current: Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is constantly involved in assessing impacts to the lands.and waters under its management, whether the impact is within or outside the Refuge boundaries. Key issues in this area have been construction of a City sewer line through Refuge forested habitats, housing development proposals, dredging proposals, and water quality management. In addition, the Refuge and VFO are jointly sponsoring the "Back Bay Initiative", an ecosystem team management effort aimed at assessing and monitoring water quality and land use issues in the Back Bay watershed. Several studies have come out of this initiative including a literature review and synthesis paper, a study assessing sediment toxicity, and a multi-year study of stormwater events. Past: Same as above. Future: Same as above. Data Base: Content: Weekly -land biweekly water quality testing records. Stormwater events data. Hourly local weather conditions. Format: Hard copy and electronic data base. Access Method: Contact refuge manager. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction: Army Corps, USDA, Dam Neck Naval Base, VDGIF, VIMS, City of Virginia Beach, East Carolina University, HRPDC, etc. Desired Future Contacts: Ms Leslie Trew, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Needed Data:Digitized maps showing land use and zoning in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. Additional information on drainage pattems and water quality. Surveys of recent Refuge land acquisitions should be conducted by local experts to identify endangered species. Suggestions for impr'ovements:Regular meetings between agencies involved in the SWA to exchange project information and research data. Making data gathered by different agencies compatible would be helpful. 57 Organization: Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Contact Person: Mr. Mtchell Norman SWA Programs: Current: No response. Past: No response. Future: No response. Data Base: Content: Historic data on salinity and turbidity of Back Bay. This information is collected quarterly. DGIF also has nutrient and chlorophyl data for Back Bay. Format: No response. Access Method: No response. Interagency Communication: Current Agency Interaction:No response. Desired Future Contacts:No response. Needed Data: No response. Suggestions for improvements:No response. 58 I I I I I I APPENDIX C: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN I VIRGINIA BEACH AND CHESAPEAKE I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTHERN WATERSELED AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. 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 Water- shed Area Management Program" with the two local govern- ments, 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 River and Northwest River 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, ad- justed 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 con- sensus 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 Compre- hensive Plans of each locality; NOW THEREFORE, the signatory parties enter into the following Agreement: This Memorandum of Agreement, entered into this_J_L_day of Q;�Qhe_r -, 1995 between the two cities, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, establishes the Cooperative Regional Southern Area Watershed 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 of Virginia, re- quires that when a proposed comprehensive plan or amendment thereto, a proposed change in zoning:map classification, or an application for special exception for a change in use, or to increase by greater than fifty percent of the bulk or height of an existing or proposed building, but not includ- ing renewals of previous approved special exceptions, in- volves any parcel of land located within one-half nile 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. 60- 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 prior ities'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 com- prehensive 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 Govern- ment decisions affecting the Southern Watershed of Chesa- peake and Virginia Beach should be consistent with these GOALS and OBJECTIVES. 4. The Memorandum of Agreement and associated local government responsibilities relating to*Virginia Beach and Chesapeake's Southern Watershed Area Management Program serves as an instrument of cooperative regional planning. The policies and related responsibilities effected by this Agreement shall not restrict either locality's legitimate function to study, plan and, if deemed to be in the public interest, adopt appropriate planned land use, zoning and other development. related changes in the defined Southern Watersheds Area. 5. The policies and related responsibilities effected by this Agreement shall not allow either locality to prevent or restrict the other locality from exercising, at its own discretion, what it determine& to be the appropriate use of lands contained within its boundaries. 6. This Agreement establishes the administrative framework which will be used by the two local governments to ensure that planning and management initiatives affecting the Southern Watershed of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach are coordinated and integrated. 7. This Agreement applies only to the cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. Both local governments will be participants in and signatories to the Agreement. a. This Agreement shall remain in effect until eithtr signatory local government shall elect to withdraw. The Agreement may be amended at anytime with both cities' con- sent. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Under the.terms of this Agreement, the signatory local governments are responsible for the following: 1. The signatory local governments shall appoint a staff person to serve as the "Southern Watershed coordi- nator." The Southern Watershed Coordinator will have the following duties: A. The.Coordinator will serve as the point of contact for all issues relating to, and requests for, information regarding the Southern Watershed Area. 61 B. The Coordinator will identify and monitor local issues and proposals which may affect the Southern Watershed Area. The Coordinators for Ch..sapeake and Virginia Beach will keep one another advised of such issues and proposals as they arise and develop. C. The Coordinator, or designee, will attend all meetings for the Southern Watershed Area Manage- ment Program. D. The Coordinator will promoie and further the goals and objectives of the Southern Watershed Area Management Program. 2. A formal institutional staff-level process for cooperative environmental management of the Southern Watershed will be designed and implemented. A schedule of regular meetings for information exchange between the two signatory local governments will be developed. 3. The MISSION STATEMENT, GOALS and OBTECTIVES developed by the Local Government Advisory Committee for the HRPDC SWAMP are intended to serve as the framework for decisions made by the two signatory local governments. The, PRIORITIES developed by the SWAMP Committee are intended to serve as the basis for developing an action plan for the Southern Watershed Area, unless public interest dictates otherwise. 4. The two signatory local governments should continue informal discussions concerning broader co- ordination of development review affecting the shared resources in the Southern Watershed Area. 5. Through the Cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management Program, the signatory local governments should develop educational materials on the sensitive lands, water quality issues and general signifi- cance 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. Through the Cooperative Regional southern Watershed Area Management Program, the signatory local governments should continue analysis of technical water quality studies, including exploring the opportunity for watershed-wide educational water quality monitoring programs. S. The Cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management Program will not require financing or budgeting from or by the signatory local governments. 9. The Cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management. Program will not purchase, own, hold or convey any real or personal property. - 10. The cooperative Regional Southern Watershed Area Management Program will not undertake any endeavors which may expose the signatory local gover--ments or the Program to liability. 62 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT City of Virginia Beach Department of Planning APPROVED AS To FORM City of Virgin Beach City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT City of Chesapeake Department of Planning APPROVED AS TO FORM City of Chesapeake City Attorney CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA BY: City Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, to-wit: I Karen M. Akers a Notary Public in and for 'the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that C. Oral Lambert, Jr. ,city Manager/Authorized Designee of the City Manager Pursuant to 5 2-154 of the City Code, whose name is signed to the foregoing Agreement, bearing date the 11th day of October 1975 has acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid. Given under my hand this 23rd day of October 1995. Karen M. Akers Notary Public My commission expires: January 31, 1999 63 CITY OF CHESAPEAKE VIRGINIA BY: City Manager (SEAL) ATTEST: city Clerk STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, to-wit: I, Wand B. Futrell, a Notary Public in and for the City and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that James. W. Rein, City Manager, whose name is signed to the foregoing Agreement, bearing date the 11 day of October, 1995 -has acknowledged the same before me in my City and State aforesaid. Given under my hand this 13 day of October , 1995. Notary Public my commission expires: 30 September, 1998 CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE COPY OF THE SOUTHERN WATERSHED AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT entered into October 11, 1995 between the City of Virginia Beach and the City of Chesapeake Ruth Hodges Smith, CMC/AAE City Clerk 64 This project was funded, in part, by the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program of the Department 0 of Environmental Quality through Grant #NA570ZO561-01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric I.. Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies or DEQ. This project received $15,500 (50%) of its funding from 14' the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program of the DEQ through a grant from NOAA, and $15,500 (50%) from the HRPDC and the Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. NOAA COASIAL SERVICES CIR LIBRARY 3 6668 14111134 6