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








                       INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR
                      STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
                           IN SHARED WATERSHEDS

                            THE PAGAN RIVER WATERSHED

                                        A PILOT STUDY





















                                        HA'MPTON RQADS
                                        PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
                                      Prepared by the Staff of the
                              Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
           TD                               December 1992
           657


           S75
           1992






              [INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
                                  IN SHARED WATERSHEDS


                               THE PAGAN RIVER WATERSHED


                                        A PILOT STUDY









                     Preparation of this report was funded, in part, by the Virginia
                 Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program
                    through Grant No. NA1 70ZO359-01 of the National Oceanic and
                  Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
                  Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
                                            amended.




                   Preparation of this report was included in the HRPDC Program for
                   1992-93, approved by the Commission at its Executive Committee
                                    Meeting of March 18, 1992







    V)


    @p
                                    Prepared by the Staff of the
                            Hampton Roads Planning District Commission

                                         December 1992


    C)











             BACKGROUND


                    Through its Regional Coastal Resources Management Program, the Hampton
             Roads Planning District Commission assists its fourteen member local governments
             in addressing stormwater management issues. This program is known as the Regional
             Stormwater Management Program.            It includes conducting technical studies,
             facilitating monthly meetings of the HRPDC Regional Stormwater Management
             Committee to exchange information and developing, in cooperation with that
             Committee, regional consensus positions on stormwater management issues.

                    The Regional Stormwater Management Program began in 1973 with a regional
             stormwater facilities study and analysis. That effort included delineation of drainage
             basins throughout the Southeastern Virginia portion of the region. From 1974 through
             1986, the regional stormwater management program was conducted under the
             auspices of the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency.

                    A renewed effort for Southeastern Virginia was begun in 1988 through financial
             assistance from the Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program (VCRMP). That
             effort resulted in the 1989 release of two studies:


                    1.     Elizabeth River Basin Environmental Management Program.

                    2.     Regional Stormwater Management Strategy for Southeastern Virginia.

             These  two studies recommended that a number of activities be undertaken on a
             cooperative regional basis to assist the region's local governments in meeting the
             requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollutant
             Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit Program, the Virginia
             Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.
             Recommended activities included development of common design standards for
             stormwater facilities, a cooperative program for water quality sampling and analysis,
             an information exchange program, a cooperative public education program and
             mechanisms for financing needed facilities and programs. It should be noted that the
             program was expanded to include not only Southeastern Virginia, but also the Virginia
             Peninsula, beginning with the 1990 establishment of the Hampton Roads Planning
             District Commission.


                    Through financial assistance from the Virginia Council on the Environment, the
             Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department and the State Water Control Board, the
             HRPDC has completed several studies to achieve these recommendations. They
             include:


                    0      Stormwater Managemenj Financing Strategy for Hampton Roads
                           Virginia, 1991.


                                                        1









                    0     Best Management Practices Design Guidance Manual for Haml2ton Roads
                          Virginia, 1992.

                    0     Model Environmental Assessment Procedur , 1992.

                    0     Vegetative Practices for Nonl2oint Source Pollution Management, 1992.

                    0     A Citizen's Guide to Nonl2oint Source Pollution, in progress, 1993.

                    0     Best Management Practices (BMP) Tracking System, including computer
                          software, 1992.

              In addition, the localities have developed a cooperative stormwater sampling program
              with the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) and a number of educational
              materials through the Hampton Roads Municipal Communicators, the regional
              organization of local public information officers.

                    In October 1991, the HRPDC obtained financial assistance from the Virginia
              Council on the Environment through the Virginia Coastal Resources Management
              Program to develop a BMP Tracking System and a Shared Watershed Institutional
              Process. The Scope for this project was modified in September 1992 to include
              support for the Commission's Regional Stormwater Management Program.

              SHARED WATERSHED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUE


                    Local governments in the Hampton Roads region frequently share the
              watersheds of small streams and tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay and its major
              tributaries. Development and stormwater management in such watersheds is
              complicated by multiple review processes and stormwater management requirements.
              Without coordinated management, this situation may result in individual developments
              being affected by two sets of differing requirements and in facilities that are
              inadequate to handle stormwater from future development in adjacent jurisdictions.
              Recognizing that this situation presents long-term management difficulties to local
              governments and to the development community, local government staff, through the
              Hampton Roads Chesapeake Bay Committee, requested the HRPDC staff to develop
              an institutional approach for managing stormwater and nonpoint source pollution in
              these watersheds in a cooperative fashion. On an ad hoc basis, an attempt was made
              to do this some years ago through the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency. A
              textbook approach to small watershed management was outlined in the 1989 Regional
              Stormwater Management Strategy for Southeastern Virginia and in the Elizabeth River
              Basin Environmental Management Program.         The latter study also outlined an
              approach to analysis of locality goals, objectives and development policies to
              determine their consistency with water quality goals and objectives.



                                                       2









                     Through financial assistance from the Virginia Council on the Environment, the
              HRPDC, in cooperation with local government staff, has undertaken a pilot study to
              develop an institutional process for cooperative management of stormwater and
              nonpoint sources of pollution in small shared watersheds. A number of watersheds
              were evaluated for possible consideration in this study. They included urban, rural
              and developing watersheds and involved various combinations of local governments.
              Based on the HRPDC staff evaluation and discussions with potentially involved
              localities, the Pagan River was selected for consideration as the pilot watershed. This
              report documents the results of that pilot study.

              Selection of Pilot Watershed


                     The Pagan River Watershed in Isle of Wight County and the Town of Smithfield
              was selected for analysis as a pilot area for the Shared Watershed Institutional
              Process. The Pagan River was selected for a variety of reasons:

                     1 .    The size of the watershed and the number of involved jurisdictions was
                            manageable.

                     2.     The watershed will be served by municipal wastewater treatment
                            facilities in the immediate future, which will enhance its development
                            potential. Thus, there is likely to be significant need for stormwater
                            management and related facility development in the near future.

                     3.     Both jurisdictions indicated an interest in participating in the project.

              It should be  noted that due to population size neither Isle of Wight County nor the
              Town of Smithfield is presently subject to the requirements for municipal Stormwater
              NPDES Permits. Both could become subject to the municipal permit requirements in
              the future.     Certain industrial activities, including construction, within both
              jurisdictions are subject to the Stormwater NPDES Permit requirements for industrial
              activities. Both jurisdictions are participating in the Regional Stormwater Management
              Strategy for Small Communities, which is being undertaken by the HRPDC.

              THE PAGAN RIVER WATERSHED


                     The Pagan River Watershed encompasses the northeastern corner of Isle of
              Wight County. The Town of Smithfield lies wholly within the Watershed. The Pagan
              River is a tributary to the James River, entering the James River approximately fifteen
              (15) miles upstream from its mouth. Figure 1 depicts the Watershed.

                     The Pagan River Watershed encompasses approximately seventy-one (71)
              square miles. The watershed is predominantly rural with more than 80% of the land
              area presently in agricultural or silvicultural use. Less than 10% of the land area,


                                                          3









              including the Town of Smithfield, which is approximately six square miles in size, is
              urban or urbanizing. The watershed contains extensive areas of tidal and nontidal
              wetlands. Intensive industrial activities are located at Smithfield.


                    Historically, the Pagan River has exhibited poor water quality. This is due
              largely to the natural characteristics of the River, which receives relatively little
              freshwater input.   Point source discharges from existing wastewater treatment
              facilities, coupled with nonpoint source pollution from the watershed's agricultural
              lands, have contributed to low dissolved oxygen levels, high nutrient levels and high
              fecal coliform levels. Nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances in the sediment
              also contribute to water quality degradation.

                    As indicated previously, central wastewater facilities will be provided to most
              of the watershed by 1995. Facilities will be provided by the Hampton Roads
              Sanitation District and will convey all wastewater out of the watershed for subsequent
              treatment and discharge. At that time, the three existing wastewater treatment plants
              will cease their discharge to the Pagan River. Following the removal of point source
              discharges to the River, water quality conditions will be dominated by nonpoint source
              pollution, stormwater runoff and pollutants in the River's sediments. Observation of
              historic conditions in the Lynnhaven River in Virginia Beach following the removal of
              point source discharges indicates that water quality conditions are likely to improve.
              However, those anticipated water quality improvements can be negated by future
              nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff unless that runoff is carefully
              managed.

                    Recent transportation improvements and the growth of the Hampton Roads
              metropolitan area have increased the desirability of the watershed for exurban and
              suburban development. Historically, poor soil conditions for septic tanks have reduced
              the development potential of the watershed. Provision of municipal wastewater
              treatment facilities for the entire watershed is expected to further enhance the
              development potential of the watershed.
















                                                        4









                                                                                                                                                               FIGURE 1


                                                                                                                                             PAGAN RIVER WATERSHED



                                                                                                           %


                                                                        676              9
                                                                      628             2001
                                                                                586

                                                                                 702
                                                            RIDGE     676
                                          To SURRY

                                                            10
                                                                 en                                                   op

                                                                                      621

                                                                 621
                                                                             10


                                          627
                                                                      673       677
                                                     621
                                                                                            673         .3                  73

                                                                                      73                                i
                                                                        21                               t,14
                      621                                             -0
                                                                                                                                     A
                                                                                                                      673
                                                                      678
                         626
                                                Sems
                                                                                                  140
                                                                                                       1110      10                                  XA           707
                                                                      525                            -            f.\      PA                                              665       --1111
                                                                                                                                                        I
           680                                                                                     -                                                        o"
                                                            w                         4             10                                                      IR
                           680
                                                            708       M3
                                                                                                                          miTHMEL07-
                         oJ6811          680
                                                            mag.0
                                                                                      o
                       681         652               0
                                                                                                                                                        C@o
                                682
                         3                                  680                                                                               669

                   swwW                              62
                                      652                                 6

                                                     e"
                682                                ae,                                                                         se                           67    665                   258
                                          620                                                                                                                        75
                                                                           2-A                                                                                                             F6673
                                                                                                                                    4. !o
                                        620                                               654    520                             644                                   32                662
                     520                                    652                                                                       8-                                                       661                 9ATTEfy
                                                                                                                                                               655
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     SAY
         stott@               647
                                                                                 692                                                6                  .7           693                          17
                    63                                                                CARROLL --                                                          odu                              661
                                                                                      BRIDG9    654

                                                                                                                                                                                               P ZF          CRIMNOEN
                                                                      'so    6                               6"                                             660                                                BRIDGE
                                                            we of
                   64             637                       W-ght 692                                                          602                        6
                         647                                                                                                                                                                    TO   PORTSM06TH
                                                                                                                                                         604
                                                                                                    54
         E91
                                                a           A-17
                      in-                                                                              Rnn           600                         1900           BOO
                                                                                                                      602
                            701                                       637
         644                                                                    652                                                                                ........
              i                                                                                                                                  Wdl*    f@@Tf    10RtF 32
                                                                                         600        654                                          10
                                                                                                                                                 32
                                                                                                                            602
                                                            605
                                                                                                                                       TO SUFFOLK
                                                                      637
                                                                             SOD
                                                                                                                    601
         545
                                                                         6037                   654             602

                      258                          SOD










              WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT GOALS


                     The Town of Smithfield and Isle of Wight County both adopted new
              Comprehensive Plans in 1991.         Both Plans elevate the consideration given to
              environmental issues in local planning and development management. They both
              contain extensive goals and objectives for development and environmental protection
              in the watershed. The environmental goals, adopted in the two communities'
              Comprehensive Plans are further detailed in their adopted Chesapeake Bay
              Preservation Act Programs and Ordinances.

                     The Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan uses a comprehensive growth
              management strategy to enhance development management and environmental
              protection efforts. Central to this strategy is the establishment of Development
              Service Districts, where facilities that support development will be provided.
              Management efforts attempt to guide growth to occur in the Development Service
              Districts. The eastern portion of the Pagan River Watershed is contained within the
              County's Northeast Development Service District. The southern and western portions
              of the Watershed are contained in the County's Rural/Agricultural/Conservation and
              Resource Conservation Districts.


                     County Goals, adopted in the Isle of Wight County Comprehensive Plan,
              include:


                     0      To guide future development into an efficient and serviceable form which
                            is protective of the County's predominantly rural character; and,

                     0      To preserve and improve the environmental quality of the County
                            through measures which protect Isle of Wight's natural resources and
                            environmentally sensitive lands and waters.

              Objectives  to provide public facilities and services within the Development Service
              District, to protect environmental resources and to manage development in an
              environmentally sensitive manner are established to ensure that these goals are
              achieved.


                     Similarly, the Town of Smithfield's Comprehensive Plan establishes goals and
              objectives to support development in a manner which is protective of the Town's
              natural environment.       Specific goals, contained in the Town of Smithfield
              Comprehensive. Plan, which address these issues include:

                     0      Enhance and protect the natural setting of Smithfield; promote a greater
                            awareness of the natural beauty and positive attributes of the Town site;
                            and preserve environmentally sensitive areas; and,



                                                          6









                    0      Encourage and provide for harmonious and wise use of the land in a
                           manner that meets the needs of the population, stimulates physical,
                           social and economic development, and protects the ecological balance
                           in the Town and surrounding area.

             Objectives and strategies to achieve these and other adopted goals are outlined in the
             Comprehensive Plan and serve as the basis for regulatory and other initiatives.

             DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS


                    Isle of Wight County and the Town of Smithfield have both adopted
             comprehensive packages of development management regulations. Both communities
             have adopted Zoning, Subdivision, Erosion and Sediment Control and Chesapeake Bay
             Preservation Act (CBPA) Ordinances. Neither community has adopted a stormwater
             management ordinance or program per se. As noted earlier in this report, neither
             community is presently required by state or federal stormwater regulations to adopt
             a discrete stormwater management program.            However, the Chesapeake Bay
             Preservation Act Ordinances adopted by the County and the Town contain the
             stormwater performance criteria required by the Act. Thus, through their CBPA and
             Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinances, both have adopted the basic elements of
             a stormwater management program.

                    Isle of Wight County and the Towns of Smithfield and Windsor agreed, in the
             mid-1970s, that the Erosion and Sediment Control Programs of the three localities
             would operated jointly with the County responsible for routine implementation
             activities, such as plan review, inspections and enforcement. Administrative and
             technical provisions in the Ordinances of the two communities are identical. Also, the
             technical provisions of the CBPA Ordinances adopted by the two communities are
             identical.


             CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS


                    This study has analyzed the goals and objectives, adopted by Isle of Wight
             County and the Town of Smithfield in their Comprehensive Plans to determine areas
             of conflict or consistency between the two. Additionally, local goals and objectives
             were analyzed to determine areas of consistency or conflict with other adopted state,
             federal and local environmental and water quality goals. Goals and objectives,
             adopted by Isle of Wight County and the Town of Smithfield, are generally consistent
             with each other.      Environmental goals, adopted by the two communities, are
             consistent with state and federal water quality goals, as embodied in the Clean Water
             Act, the State Water Control Law and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.
             Development goals, adopted by the two communities, exhibit some areas of potential
             conflict with those state and federal goals. However, both Comprehensive Plans and



                                                        7









              related development ordinances contain strategies designed to ameliorate the adverse
              impacts of those potential conflicts.

                    The development ordinances, adopted by Isle of Wight County and the Town
              of Smithfield, are designed to address areas of potential conflict between development
              and environmental protection. As indicated previously, the Erosion and Sediment
              Control Ordinances and CBPA Ordinances, adopted by the County and the Town are
              identical.  The County administers the Town's Erosion and Sediment Control
              Ordinance. In implementing their CBPA Ordinances, both jurisdictions rely on the
              same technical guidance and standards. Both use the Nonpoint Source Calculation
              Procedure, developed by the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, as the
              basis for reviewing development compliance with the CBPA Stormwater Performance
              Criteria. The Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, developed by the Virginia
              Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
              serves as the basis for Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and the evaluation thereof
              in both localities. Both localities also use two technical documents, developed by the
              Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, in stormwater management evaluation
              and planning. They are:

                    0      Best Management Practices Design Guidance Manual for Harngton Roads
                           Virginia, 1991.

                    0      Vegetative Practices Guide for Nonl2oint Source Pollution Management,
                           1992.


              Thus, technical requirements for stormwater management governing development in
              the two communities are identical.


                    An institutional process for development review that facilitates the application
              of these technical requirements in a manner which ensures that upstream and
              downstream conditions and needs are considered is the next step in coordinated
              development management in the watershed. The foundation for this coordination has
              been established in several ways:

                    0      A memorandum of agreement has been developed between the County
                           and Town, providing for County administration and enforcement of the
                           Town's Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance.


                    0      Both communities are participating in the Regional Stormwater
                           Management Program. Specifically, both communities are participating
                           in the regional study of the stormwater management needs of small
                           communities.





                                                         8









                    0      Both communities have participated actively in the conduct of this pilot
                           study.


             STUDY PROCESS


                    Conduct of this pilot study has involved a cooperative effort by staff from Isle
             of Wight County, the Town of Smithfield and the Hampton Roads Planning District
             Commission. Each had specific responsibilities. The HRPDC staff was responsible for
             the following:

                    1 .    To review and analyze the Comprehensive Plans and Development
                           Regulations of the two communities.

                    2.     To document the results of that review and development
                           recommendations for consideration by the two communities.

                    3.     To facilitate discussions between County and Town staff in order to
                           reach a consensus on issues needing consideration and on the design of
                           the coordinated process.

             County and Town staff were responsible for documenting local goals, objectives and
             plans for the watershed. They were requested to identify technical issues that needed
             to be considered and institutional considerations that needed to be accommodated in
             the design of the coordinated process.

                    The study effort involved two meetings of study participants and a series of
             telephone conversations between them.          The purpose of these meetings and
             telephone conversations was to identify issues, to reach consensus on methods of
             addressing those issues and to concur with the final report produced by the HRPDC
             staff. Through this process, consensus was reached on the following points:

                    0      An institutional mechanism for coordinated development review to
                           ensure consistent management of stormwater in the Pagan River
                           Watershed is desirable.


                    0      The institutional mechanism needs to be informal, at this time. It should
                           incorporate a staff level review process.

                    0      Common design standards for stormwater management are appropriate.
                           As noted previously in this report, they are already in place insofar as
                           Erosion and Sediment Control and CBPA Stormwater Performance
                           Criteria are concerned. As specific stormwater management programs
                           are developed, common design standards should be included.



                                                        9









                      0     Requirements for operation and maintenance of non-local government
                            stormwater management facilities should be developed to ensure the
                            long-term effectiveness of the facilities and to ensure that doe not
                            become an administrative or financial burden to the locality. This issue
                            will be addressed in detail in the Regional Stormwater Management
                            Strategy for Small Communities, being developed by the HRPDC.

                      0     A formal institutional structure for cooperative stormwater management
                            should be evaluated and developed if appropriate and necessary as one
                            element of the proposed Regional Stormwater Strategy for Small
                            Communities. (That study, to be conducted by the HRPDC, will be
                            undertaken during 1993.)

                      0     The two communities should continue informal discussions concerning
                            broader coordination of development review.

                      0     The HRPDC staff should be available to facilitate joint meetings between
                            staff from the two jurisdictions if desired and requested.

                      0     An informal staff-level process should be established to permit review of
                            stormwater management plans for development within the watershed.
                            Initially, this review should focus on developments on lands adjacent to
                            the jurisdictional boundary.

              STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROCESS


                      To begin the process of cooperative stormwater management by Isle of Wight
              County and the Town of Smithfield, a coordinated review process addressing
              stormwater management issues, associated with specific development proposals
              should be instituted. The following process provides for a staff level review and
              coordination effort. It is structured, at present, as an informal process that can be
              modified and formalized as experience and future program needs dictate.

                      1 .   Developer submits development plan, including stormwater management
                            plan, to locality where p roject is located.

                      2.    Local staff reviews development plan in accordance with normal County
                            and/or Town administrative procedures.

                      3.    If property drains to a tributary stream flowing through the other locality,
                            the staff from the reviewing locality will advise staff from the other
                            locality and request comments.




                                                          10









                     4.     If property abuts the adjacent locality, the staff from the reviewing
                            locality will advise staff from the other locality and request comments.

                     5.     If stormwater facilities in the development could serve upstream
                            development in the adjacent locality, staff from the reviewing locality will
                            contact the other locality to determine development plans and scheduling
                            on upstream lands. The reviewing locality will attempt to ensure that
                            facilities will be designed to serve any expected future development.

                     6.     Both localities will attempt to use the proffer system to ensure that
                            stormwater management facilities are designed to accommodate
                            potential future development throughout the area that is tributary to
                            those facilities without regard to jurisdictional boundaries.

              CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


                     Based on this pilot study of the Pagan River Watershed, involving Isle of Wight
              County and the Town of Smithfield, a number of observations about the utility of the
              "Shared Watersheds Process" can be made.


                     1 .    The "Shared Watersheds Process" is a useful exercise for encouraging
                            discussions between two or more communities. It can lead to increased
                            cooperation in stormwater management.

                     2.     The "Process" would appear to be more necessary in coordinating
                            development review and stormwater management in watersheds where
                            considerable development is already occurring and where the involved
                            localities have already established stormwater management programs
                            and design standards. However, in such cases, it can be expected that
                            this process will require more protracted negotiations. Where specific
                            development proposals are under review, the developer(s) or their
                            representatives will need to be brought into the process prior to finalizing
                            recommendations.


                     3.     Certain tasks, outlined in the original scope of work for this project, are
                            not specifically necessary, at least in the Hampton Roads region, to
                            development of a consensus on stormwater management issues. These
                            are the tasks involving analysis of local comprehensive plan goals and
                            objectives and determination of consistency/inconsistency between the
                            goals and state and federal environmental goals.

                     4.     Review of stormwater management requirements and facility design
                            standards and identification of consistency and inconsistency among



                                                          11










                          them is the critical technical task in a "Shared Watershed Process"
                          project.


                   5.     The most critical element in the success of the "Process" is the
                          facilitated negotiation process.

                   6.     Assuming interest and desire from other communities in Hampton Roads,
                          a "Shared Watershed Process" project should be undertaken in the future
                          for a watershed which is subject to current development pressures and
                          which has active development projects, located in one or more
                          communities in the watershed.














































                                                      12










                                              BIBLIOGRAPHY


             Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department. Local Assistance Manual. Richmond,
                   Virginia: CBLAD, var. dates.

             Isle of Wight County Planning Commission with Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.
                   Corngrehensive Plan: Isle of Wight County. Isle of Wight, Virginia: The
                   County, 1991.

             Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. Vegetative Practices Guide for
                   Nonl2oint Source Pollution Management. Chesapeake, Virginia: HRPDC, 1992.

             Hampton Roads Planning District Commission. Best Management Practices Design
                   Guidance Manual for Hampton Roads. Chesapeake, Virginia: HRPDC, 1991.

             Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.          Regional Coastal Resources
                   Management Program for Hampton Roads Virginia: Fiscal Year 1991-1992.
                   Chesapeake, Virginia: HRPDC, 1991.

             Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency.             Hammon Roads Water Qualijy
                   Management Plan - Appendix 3, Volume C, Part II: Water Quality in the Pagan
                   River. Virginia Beach, Virginia: HRWQA, 1977.

             Smithfield Planning Commission with K.W. Poore & Associates, Ltd.              The
                   Coml2rehensive Plan: Town of Smithfield, Virginia. Smithfield, Virginia: The
                   Town, 1991.


             Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water
                   Conservation.   Vir-ginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.        (Third
                   Edition.) Richmond, Virginia: The Division, 1992.


















                                                     13







                                                                                                                                     NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                                    3 6668 14111127 0