Elizabeth RiverRunoff:

Win-Win SolutionsAddressing stormwater

in an urban watershed:

EVALUATING SITES,,

SEEKING INNOVATIVE REMEDIES,,

IMPLEMENTING NEW DESIGNS

STORMWATER TEAM

William H. Hunt, StormwaterEngineer, North Carolina StateUniversity

Pam Boatwright, Assistant Director,Elizabeth River Project

Kathy Hill, Stormwater Coordinator,Elizabeth River Project

The Elizabeth River Project is anindependent non-profit

organization representing thewatershed that unites four

cities: Chesapeake, Norfolk,Portsmouth, and Virginia

Beach, Virginia.Our mission is to restore the

Elizabeth River to the highestpractical level of

environmental quality throughgovernment, business andcommunity partnerships.

BACKGROUND

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1The Award-Winning River Stars Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .2List of Sites Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

SITES FOR ACTION AND SITES EVALUATED

Focus Area 1: Downtown/Atlantic City Norfolk . . . . . . .4Focus Area 2: Paradise Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Additional Site Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Elizabeth River Runoff: Win-Win Solutions

www.elizabethriver.org475 Water Street, Suite C103APortsmouth, VA 23704757-399-7487

Cover photos: A view of downtown Norfolk from the Elizabeth River; two views of Stormwater Team atwork. All photographs & text (c) Elizabeth River Project 2002.

This publication made possible by funding from the National Fishand Wildlife Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant Program:Elizabeth River (VA) Riparian Buffer Corridor, Project #: 2001-0155-018

Special thanks are due to National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant Program, the citizens andstormwater officials of the watershed cities of Norfolk, Portsmouth andChesapeake, engineer Bill Hunt, Old Dominion University student PinarOzdural, the Elizabeth River Project staff and directors, Hampton RoadsPlanning District Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency’sRegion III and national staff, the principals at all the potential stormwatersites visited by the stormwater site assessment team, including Mr. Peck andthe Rahimpour and Faust families of Paradise Creek, plus to all theparticipants in the River Stars Program who have taken up the banner ofstormwater innovation so eagerly and made this project a rousing success.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

IntroductionOur downtowns share stormwater issues with any highly urbanized area.

As is true elsewhere, four hundred years of development of our urban waterfrontbring the thorniest of stormwater challenges: no available land for conventionalpractices; about 70 acres of highly impervious urban streets, interstates, parkinglots, sidewalks and rooftops drain to a single pumping station; riverbanks areentirely bulkheaded; the antiquated stormwater infrastructure dischargesuntreated runoff directly into the river; the minimal elevation above sea levelmeans much of downtown is enclosed by floodwalls.

This guide describes how over thirty widely varying sites in and neardowntown Norfolk were evaluated by a team led by engineer William F. Hunt,P. E., urban stormwater specialist from North Carolina State University, to seeksolutions to this knotty problem. Land uses ran the gamut from salvage yards toboatyards to upscale waterfront backyards. Of a wide range of downtown sitesexamined, seven were evaluated in detail and five were identified for potentialstormwater practices. A number of the team’s proposals have already beenimplemented, including six riparian buffers.

The Elizabeth River Project’s highly successful partnership approach,with all stakeholders involved, is the key to this effort’s positive effect on waterquality, and its promise of win-win solutions for all.

GoalsThe purpose of this guide is to offer well-designed alternatives for

addressing runoff other than the traditional stormwater pond. We present thecream of the sites weevaluated and therationales for thestormwater innovationschosen. A particular site’scharacteristics are given,then a description of itsrecommended practice,with advantages, concernsand cost estimates.

We hope this guidemay motivate others inurban watersheds of theChesapeake Bay to “thinkout of the box” abouturban runoff.

If we facilitatefurther action atparticipating ElizabethRiver sites, that meets ourhighest aim, given ourmission.

PAGE 1

Engineer Cindy Linkenhoker of the City ofPortsmouth (left), Lyle Jackson of the Elizabeth

River Project (center), and stormwater expert BillHunt (right) plan a stormwater wetland on

Paradise Creek.

PAGE 2

River Star Industries: A Target AudienceOne of the goals of this

project was to make runoffrecommendations to the ElizabethRiver Project’s River Star industries.All voluntarily prevent pollutionand/or restore critical habitat. Peerreviews demand continued progress,plus documented results in poundsof pollution reduced and acres ofwildlife habitat conserved orrestored .

Participation calls for effortsbeyond compliance. For instance, toearn “Model Level” status, a RiverStar must not only demonstrateexemplary environmentalstewardship, but mentor others.

River Stars soon see manybenefits of “doin’ right by the river,”garnering financial savings andreaping publicity that no amount ofadvertising can produce.

We are most grateful to theRiver Stars participating in thisproject: Norfolk Boat Works,People for the Ethical Treatment ofAnimals, Southeastern PublicService Agency, Norfolk NavalShipyard, Virginia Zoological Park,Norfolk EnvironmentalCommission, United States CoastGuard Integrated SupportCommand, United States MaritimeAdministration, and Virginia PortAuthority.

In 2002, River Star Nova Chemicals hosted a delegation from China to share the success of the River Stars partnership model.

PAGE 3

Stormwater Sites Assessed

Focus Area 1: Downtown Norfolk/Atlantic City Floodwall Pumping Station . . . . . . .Floating wetland gardenNauticus Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Manual scoopingCorps of Engineers parking lot . . . . .Buffer stripNorfolk Boat Works boatyard . . . . .Rain gardenSouthampton Avenue drain . . . . . . . .Silt filter devicePlum Point property . . . . . . . . . . . . .Simple repairMidtown Tunnel area . . . . . . . . . . . .Detention pondPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) . . . .Rain garden

Lovitt Avenue property . . . . . . . . . . .Habitat restorationHarbor Park parking lots . . . . . . . . . .Permeable pavement"R2" parking area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Permeable pavement

Focus Area 2: Paradise Creek, PortsmouthPeck Iron & Metal site . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater Wetland Cooper-Reid lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater Wetland Southeastern Public Service Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mechanical retrofits and bufferCradock Mid. School East . . . . . . . .Conventional BMPCradock Mid. School West . . . . . . . .BioretentionNorfolk Naval ShipyardNew Gosport Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Riparian buffer

Additional Sites AssessedLenox Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater wetland constructionRiver's Edge Development . . . . . . . .Low Impact Development (LID) Virginia Zoological Park . . . . . . . . .LID and riparian bufferErnie Morgan EnvironmentalCenter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater reuse

Myrtle Avenue park . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bioretention areaKnitting Mill Creek Riparian bufferSteamboat Creek playground . . . . . .Riparian bufferRoberts Rowing Center . . . . . . . . . . .Bioretention areaUS Maritime Administration . . . . . .Bioretention areaUS Coast Guard Integrated Support Command . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bioretention area

Midtown Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bioretention area

River Star program participants appear in Bold Italics throughout

PAGE 4

WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

In an urban watershed likethat of the Elizabeth River, everyrainfall’s impact is magnified byhigh imperviousness and absence ofnatural spongy wetlands to slow andfilter the flow.

Urban stormwater engineerWilliam F. Hunt uses the followingcriteria for selecting urban bestmanagement practices:

• pollutants to be treated, • size of watershed,• imperviousness of

watershed, and• amount of available land. Stormwater best

management practices as normallyapplied vary widely in their costsand spatial requirements. Theirongoing maintenance demands areoften a major concern. Sometimesthe characteristic that mostrecommends a practice for a givenpurpose, such as its high removalrate of suspended particles, is thevery thing that causes that practice(wells and infiltration trenches) tofail.

EFFECTIVENESS

The variable of specialconcern to us is effectiveness. Somepractices address toxics; some slowsedimentation (reduction ofsuspended particles); some reducethe flow of phosphorus and nitrateinto aquifers and watercourses toimprove the health of aquatic plants;some are “nitrate leakers” (negativeremoval). Management practicesare compared in terms of relativeeffectiveness in Hunt’s publicationUrban Waterways/UrbanStormwater Best ManagementPractices (BMPs), published by

North Carolina State UniversityCooperative Extension.

Our partners demand anexcellent cost/benefit ratio for eachimplementation. The practice mustmatch the site’s particular needs andthe funder’s budget. Many expertssay the best thing to do aboutstormwater in terms of “bang for thebuck” is to plant a tree (or several -a riparian buffer). One ranking ofpractices in terms of overalleffectiveness looks like this (Brauneand Wood, South Africa, 1999):

Best: Minimizeimpermeable area with detentionponds, retention dams, riparianbuffers and wetlands.

Moderate: Use porouspavements, infiltration basins andwetland channels.

Least: Put in grass buffers,swales, and percolation trenches.

WETLANDS AND BUFFERS

Most of the stormwaterpractices developed under this grantthat are now completed or inplanning stages are riparian buffersand stormwater wetlands.

Stormwater wetlands removenearly 80% of suspended solids(very high) and remove morenitrate-nitrogen than any otherpractice, usually well over 40%.

Riparian buffers remove alltypes of pollutants, includingsediment, phosphorus, and nitrate.They rank very high (80%) inremoval of suspended solids andmoderate (40%) in removal ofnitrates.

Unfortunately, urban areasseldom offer sufficient space tobuild these.

Practice Selection Considerations

PAGE 5

A big opportunity to developpublic awareness of the problem ofstormwater is so enticing, it canmore than make up for anyshortcomings of a given practice interms of toxics removal or nitrogenuptake. Education is not a benefitconsidered by the above rankingsystems, but contributes to long-term watershed health. By educatingthe citizens about their watershedand its issues, especially the role ofstormwater in ongoing pollution ofthe river, we stand to make a majorchange in the behavior of thecitizenry and of future generations.By helping every resident andvisitor become a good steward ofthe watershed, we insure theElizabeth’s recovery and futurehealth.

PERMEABLE PAVING: HIDDEN BENEFITS

An additional practicerecommended by our stormwaterteam for early implementation ispermeable pavement, at the “R2”site in Town Point Park and at theCorps of Engineers parking lot’ssidewalk. (This was alsorecommended for the “River’sEdge” development site.) By theabove formulations, it has only amoderate effectiveness level, and itcan carry a substantial price tag.However, it has two big advantages.

The first is that it does notrequire “new” space to be madeavailable; it can replaceexisting pavement, if vehicularuse is light, infrequent orabsent. Therefore it stronglyrecommends itself in thishighly urbanized environmentas it permits placing a practicewhere there is room for noother kind.

Secondarily, by placingpermeable pavement on part ofthe popular Elizabeth RiverTrail, we gain the attention of a

large segment of the public. Notonly do walkers, joggers, bicyclistsand skateboarders find the pavementunderfoot, they will be exposed tolarge educational signs that explainwhy stormwater is an issue andwhat they can do about it. At the“R2” site, the pavement would beplaced at a heavily frequented spotbetween a popular yacht marina, afestival marketplace, and a cruiseship dock, right in the public eye.

The Corps sidewalk projectis poised to proceed once funding isin place.

INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER RE-USE

Given that stormwater runoffis the No. 1 source of new pollutionin our watershed, anything thatserves to reduce the amount ofrunoff reaching the river has to bebeneficial.

One goal of the ElizabethRiver Project’s Watershed ActionPlan is to make stormwater re-usethe new standard for business andindustry. The timeliness of this goalhas been emphasized by the recentsevere drought conditions in ourregion. Not only is runoff thesource of pollution for our river; italso wastes a precious resource,fresh water.

An innovative River Starindustry on the Southern Branch ofthe Elizabeth, Southern States

This lift station handles stormwater from 70 acres of downtown

PAGE 6

Possible location for the Floating Wetland Garden: downtown cove with liftstation (right), condominiums at left; the battleship Wisconsin is in this cove too.

Cooperative Chesapeake Fertilizerplant, collects runoff from severaltheir site and pumps it to a largestorage tank. It draws itsmanufacturing process water fromthis tank. This system is so efficientthat the plant no longer dischargesstormwater to the river except inunusually heavy rain events.

RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER RE-USE

The Elizabeth River Projectstormwater project team discoveredthat it is neither expensive nordifficult for ordinary citizens toaddress storm water issues in urbanresidential neighborhoods withanother type of innovation:bringing back grandmother's rainbarrel! We have produced anadditional publication describinghow and why a back-yard rainbarrel is an achievable, sustainable,affordable project in urban areas,especially in this time of drought:Call us for a copy of Everybody

Needs a Rain Barrel. Itsdistribution to urban propertyowners will encourage an ethic ofre-use throughout the watershed.

PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC RELATIONS

Part of raising publicconsciousness of stormwater issuesinvolves first getting the public’sattention to the gravity of theproblem. One innovative solutiondeveloped under this grant has thepotential for international publicity.The Floating Wetland Garden ofNorfolk would then actuallyexemplify four of these benefits:Treatment (the effect of wetlandplantings), Reduction (of the flow ofstormwater to the pumping stationand directly into the river),Education (with appropriate signagein a high-traffic location), andPublicity (likely to be substantial forsuch an innovative and highlytransferrable practice).

PAGE 7

Focus Area 1: Downtown Norfolk/Atlantic City

Downtown Norfolk is much like other older urban waterfronts: Highlydeveloped, highly impervious, with an old stormwater system. Manymerchants here are concerned about the impression unsightly floating trashmakes on residents and visitors, since downtown is on the riverbank. A specialconcern of stormwater investigators was their discovery that 70 acres of thedowntown area drains to one spot, at a lift station where it stormwater iscollected and pumped into the river.

Nearby is the Atlantic City neighborhood, where there is a surge ofinterest in major redevelopment. Here a small boatyard caters to do-it-yourselfsailors, a walking and biking trail winds through brambles, a major medicalcenter spawns expanding parking lots, and military installations vie with privatecompanies for a prime waterfront view. There’s a Civil War fort to remindwalkers of the neighborhood’s strong ties to the past, and an old seafoodwarehouse that still processes clams for chowder. The area is on the fringe ofdowntown and the redevelopment plans present an opportunity for soundstormwater practices to be incorporated.

Best Sites for ActionDowntown lift stationNauticus basinUS Army Corps of Engineers Parking Lot/City Sidewalk

Sites AssessedDowntown lift station . . . . . . . . . . . .Floating Wetland GardenNauticus waterfront basin . . . . . . . . .Manual scoopingUS Army Corps of Engineers lot . . .Buffer/permeable pavementNorfolk Boat Works boatyard . . . . .Rain garden and bufferMidtown Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater wetlandPETA Headquarters building . . . . . .Rain garden

When a thousand visitors get off a cruise ship, they should see clean water.

PAGE 8

SITE DESCRIIPTION

The need is great foraddressing runoff and land is lackingin downtown Norfolk, heart of theElizabeth River watershed. The areais nearly completely impermeable,typical of cities of this size. Over70 acres of downtown streets,parking lots and rooftops funnel toone outfall where a concretefloodwall is the interface betweenland and water. Here a municipallift station collects the runoff andsends it in a rush into the harbor.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

While an adequate amount ofland to completely capture and treatthe first flush of downtown’sstormwater is not available, apercentage of it could be divertedonto one or more barges. From thesurface, the floating gardens wouldbe exactly that - a garden of

attractive stormwater wetlandvegetation species planted on abarge. The highly visible site couldvery easily be converted into anadditional tourist destination.

The size of the floatinggarden will range from 0.25 to 0.50acres or more. The barge or bargeswould need a drainage system,overlaid by soil, and would beconnected to existing downtownstormwater systems. A pump wouldbe necessary to divert the runoff tothe wetland.

Among several unoccupieddowntown bulkheads suitable forpermanent mooring of a barge is aspot near Nauticus, the NationalMaritime Center, adjacent toHarbour Place Condominiums,opposite the Wisconsin in the samecove. This is adjacent to the liftstation on Boush Street that receivesrunoff from more than 70 acres ofdowntown Norfolk.

Site for Action: Floating Wetland Garden

The floating wetland garden could be a tourist attractionas is the battleship Wisconsin, also moored in downtown Norfolk.

PAGE 9

ADVANTAGES

A portion of the runoff frommuch of downtown Norfolk wouldbe treated, and there is no otherevident place where this could bedone.

Wetlands have the highestpollutant removal percentages formost nutrients and heavilyurbanized areas usually have thehighest nutrient runoff loads.

The floating wetland wouldbe free of river water, so plantingscould include attractive species suchas Pickerelweed, Rose Mallow,Southern Blue Flag Iris, and SoftStem Bulrush.

The site could very easily bean additional attractive touristdestination in this high-visibilityspot, offering opportunities toeducate multitudes of visitors andcitizens on urban stormwater issues.

It would be a model projectfor other large coastal communities,where runoff is very difficult tomanage due to spatial constraints.

The project's nature wouldmake it a candidate for national andinternational acclaim. It would beone of the most unique andinnovative stormwater projects ever.The publicity for the city and allinvolved would be enormous.

CONCERNS

A hydrographic study isneeded to determine how big thefloating wetland would need to be.If large wetland barges will onlytreat 5-10% of runoff from small tomoderate storms (such as 0.50" orsimilar), it would probably be tooexpensive to pursue.

Can the lift station berelatively easily retrofitted with apump? The required pump mayneed to be installed outside thebuilding.

Would the aestheticsassociated with the stormwaterwetland and the pipe that connects itto the lift station be problematic?While the pipe's diameter would bea relatively small 24-36" nominaldiameter, it could appear unsightlyto some people. Many wetlandsbloom nine months of the year inthis climate, but million-dollarcondominiums are close by. Theblooming wetland would beattractive to most people, but otherscould dislike the wetland looks orslight sulphuric odor.

Are we likely to securedonation of the most costlycomponent, the barge? In thisworld-class port, very likely.

Would there ever be a risk ofthe floating wetland sinking orbreaking free during a storm? Canbe an engineering parameter fromthe outset.

What type of vegetationworks well for a site that isreceiving only fresh water, but isexposed to salt spray? Vegetationselection will be critical.

Is docking a barge in thequay acceptable with the city andneighbors? Local property ownerswill need to accept the wetland'spresence. If the wetland can betreated as an amenity, this issue maybe quickly solved.

What type of maintenanceshould be expected, and by whom?City of Norfolk is likely to acceptthe maintenance burden.

COSTS

These costs are difficult togauge due to the likelihood that alarge part of the materials and laborwould be donated or offered at alow price. The highest costs forconstruction are listed as follows:

PAGE 10

• Barge acquisition and conversion,$250,000 - $400,000

• Soil purchase, transport, andplacement, $50,000 - $80,000

• Wetland plant purchase, transport,and placement, $30,000

• Lift Station retrofitting, $30,000 -$50,000

• Pipe purchase and installation,$10,000 - $20,000

• Engineering, $40,000 - $50,000• System maintenance, minimum

life of 20 years, $30,000 for20 years

This gives a potential rangein cost of approximately $450,000to $700,000.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Another option to explorewould be to treat much ofdowntown Norfolk by utilizing anexpensive, yet tried option ofpumping and directing stormwaterto relatively vacant areas adjacent todowntown. The cost of a similartype project in Washington, NC,ranged from $2,000,000 to$3,000,000, though the cost inNorfolk would obviously changewith the scope of the exact project.

The Elizabeth River is the centerpiece for the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth.The number one source of new pollution in the river is stormwater runoff.

PAGE 11

Site for Action: Floating Litter DowntownSITE DESCRIPTION

Visible debris is a bigconsideration for downtownmerchants as an importantcomponent of the public’sexperience of downtown and theriverscape around it. Largequantities of floating trashaccumulate in the corners andeddies of this shoreline. Litter isthe most tangible sign of the river’spoor health, a source of toxics, anda reminder of historic neglect. Theparty stepping up to this issue is theDowntown Norfolk Council, a self-taxing association of businesses inthe heart of downtown, stronglymotivated to effectively addresslitter and so improve the public’simpression of the neighborhood.

Litter lands in the harborthree main ways: First, it is washedfrom the street into storm drains.This may be a minor source sincethe opening in the grates of thedowntown stormwater inlets arequite small, keeping much of thelitter out of the storm drain.However, street debris is stilltrapped in the wet well near thepumping station before it reachesthe river (more than 70 acres of

downtown watershed drain to thisspot). Second, it is carried acrossthe river on tides and currents andwind – a source of visible pollutionsuch as fast food containers andlarger items that originated outsidedowntown. Third, it is blown fromTown Point Park and nearby trashcans and dumpsters, a source ofvisible garbage plus sedimentation,mulch, leaves and organics; this isconsidered minor, due to anaggressive street-cleaning andsidewalk-cleaning program now inplace.

The Stormwater Teaminterviewed a city dockmaster, anemployee of a harbor tour shipdocked at the park, and amaintenance man at Nauticus, eachof whom was tasked with dippingtrash out of the harbor at frequentintervals. They clean, respectively,Waterside Marina, Otter Berth, andthe north and south basins and thefountains at Nauticus, the worstpockets for collecting floatingobjects. The workers agreed thattimbers, hats, and miscellaneousobjects largely arrive from the otherside of the water, the river ratherthan the land.

Hordes of residents and visitors enjoy the downtown Norfolk waterfront, adestination that must remain “as clean as Disneyland.”

PAGE 12

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

The Stormwater Teamresearched a range of options, withbroadly varying price tags andfeasibilities. The option chosen bythe downtown merchants: Manualscooping. Their employees are nowspending more time seeking outvisible pollutants and removingthem promptly, while preventingtrash from falling or blowing intothe water. Since the DowntownNorfolk Council employs personnelfor related tasks in this location,more trash pickup on land and waterwas inexpensive to add. On awaterfront with different communityresources, a modest Whaler-typeopen boat, possibly donated, staffedby an operator with nets similar tothose used for trawling, wouldamplify the efforts of waterfrontpersonnel at hot spots where trash isout of reach and out of control.Juvenile justice diversion groupssuch as the one using a patrol boatas a floating classroom at Nauticusmight be positioned to take on thework for a small donation, if boatand nets were provided. Scoutgroups, yacht clubs, fraternalorganizations and service clubs arelikely sources of labor andenthusiasm, for the work or forfundraising to purchase equipment.

ADVANTAGES

Immediate results. Modestoutlay for equipment, maintenance,storage, trash hauling and personnelcosts. Flexible as budgets changeand trash quantities ebb and flow.

CONCERNS

A dedicated dumpster mightbe needed. Personnel costs can be

prohibitive, along with liability andtraining, if scoopers are expected tohandle heavy or contaminated items.

COSTS

Storm drain retrofit devicesmight be worth considering,although the number of units isdaunting. A wide range of devicesare available, some speciallydesigned to handle debris as well astoxics. CDS has separators tocapture pollution, removingsuspended solids with no movingparts, can treat up to 300 cfs (majorstorm), cost $7,000 up each, withsimple maintenance at only $300up/year. A “Stormceptor” can costas much as $65,000 per unit, andremoves much from the stormdrain’s flow.

Expensive to own andoperate but the best bet for offshoresources, capturing debris before itgets to shore: Skimmer boats. Twoboat manufacturers, AdvancedMarine (“Hydro-Skimmer”) andUnited Marine International(“Trashcat”), produce appropriatevessels.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Some methods of addressingvisible pollutants like litter alsoaddress invisible ones likepetrochemicals and organics, andthese are preferred, budgetpermitting. Although litter arrivesin the river via wind and ignorancein addition to stormwater flows,effectively managing stormwaterwould have an immediate andimpressive effect on the amount oflitter that needs to be removed,while offering a chance to educatethe public to its harms.

PAGE 13

SITE DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers has a paved employeeparking lot which is graded in anunusual way. It drains to one edge,about 200 feet long, like a tippedtabletop, instead of funneling to onecorner, which is the norm. Thissheet flow, sweeping acrossrudimentary fringe vegetation plus aconcrete sidewalk totalling aboutten feet in width, carries a visibleload of dirt, sediment and a varietyof pollutants into the gutter ofSouthampton Avenue, which drainsto a curb inlet and then straight intothe nearby main stem of theElizabeth, creating a “delta” plumewhen it rains.

Three features make thislocation enticing for a stormwaterinnovation: A visible flow ofpollution, ideal for a buffer strip,occuring in such an urban

environment; and the addededucational opportunity beckoningbecause the next phase of thepopular Elizabeth River Trail isoverlaid on this sidewalk, and willfeature educational signage forwalkers and bicyclists.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

A proposed buffer would becreated by removing the sidewalkand edging it with topsoil. For theElizabeth River Trail, permeablepavement chosen to meet Americanswith Disabilities Act standards canthen be placed, with educationalsignage appropriate to this high-visibility location. The buffer stripbetween lot and path will encourageinfiltration, and will replaceunsightly, sparse weeds. Thecombination will provide treatment,slow flow, reduce sedimentaion,teach the public, and beautify thecityscape.

Site for Action: US Army Corps of Engineers ParkingLot and City Sidewalk

Southampton Avenue is discolored by parking lot sedimentation and runoff. Thissidewalk can be replaced with permeable pavement (sample shown in inset),

with a buffer along the fence.

PAGE 14

ADVANTAGES

A buffer strip is a simplepractice. There is very littleengineering involved andconstruction should not be toodifficult. It may not be wide enoughto encourage mass infiltration,which was a concern amongstakeholders.

The installation of a bufferstrip will dramatically decrease theneed for maintenance. In the longterm this will save the city somemoney.

The likelihood of havingservices donated to construct thispractice appears to be high. Ifsubstantive work is performedgratis, the cost-benefit relationshipwould be very high.

There is a reasonable drop inelevation from the parking lot to thestreet. The width, 8 to 10 feet, issufficient to settle out somesedimentation, which is not a suretyin most ultra-urban settings.

Perhaps other buffer strips inultra-urban areas could follow.

CONCERNS

Proximity to street andparking lot, while not a hugeconcern, is a minor worry becausewater infiltrating the soil couldtheoretically impact the adjoiningstreet. The soil is considered good,so this concern is consideredremote.

Location of the ElizabethRiver Trail is a concern because itmust meet rigid Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) standards.With permeable pavement donecorrectly, wheelchair users are notinconvenienced.

The amount of watershedtreated is relatively small (estimatedto be 2 acres). The purpose of theproject is for demonstration and torelieve downstream landowners of acontinuing nuisance.

COSTS

A vegetated filter strip is theleast expensive treatment option.Adding the permeable pavement toaccommodate the Elizabeth RiverTrail increases the cost, whichcould be under $10,000 for sitepreparation, plus from $10,000 upfor permeable paving. There are bigsavings if the City of Norfolkremoves the concrete sidewalk andhauls it away. Total topsoil costsmight run approximately $6,000 tofill the area under the permeablepavement. If the buffer strip isseeded with bermuda or centipedegrass the cost would decrease, butnative plants, chosen for lowmaintenance, would enhance theeducational value and only addabout $5,000 to the cost. If verylittle work on the project were donein house, the cost of the projectmight not justify the results.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Many partners areenthusiastic about this project. TheUS Army Corps of Engineers, whichowns the parking lot, has already setaside some money in its budget.The City of Norfolk is willing toassist with the demolition of the oldsidewalk. The Rotary Club ofNorfolk has indicated interest. TheEPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program isconsidering matching funding tomake this a demonstration projectfor federal agencies around the Bay.

PAGE 15

Focus Area 2:Paradise Creek, Portsmouth

On the banks of Paradise Creek, a small tributary of the Elizabeth River,one finds a diverse mix of land uses, including small businesses, establishedneighborhoods, old “brownfields” sites, and major industrial activities such asthe Norfolk Naval Shipyard and a regional trash-to-energy plant, SoutheasternPublic Service Agency (SPSA). The goal of the Elizabeth River Project is torestore this entire subwatershed by 2007.

Stormwater plans will be crucial to this success. Paradise Creek waschosen for our model restoration initiative because of its compact watershed size,its wide array of users, its residents’ willingness to contribute their efforts to itsrecovery, and its mirroring of the degradation confronted elsewhere in theElizabeth River watershed, now underway. “Return to Paradise!” is our rallyingcry for this creek.

Best Sites for ActionNorfolk Naval ShipyardPeck Iron and MetalCooper Avenue at Reid StreetSoutheastern Public Service Agency

Sites AssessedNorfolk Naval Shipyard . . . . . . . . . .Riparian bufferPeck Iron & Metal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater wetland Cooper-Reid lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stormwater wetland Southeastern Public Service

Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Retrofits and bufferCradock Middle School Outfall E. . .Conventional BMPCradock Middle School Outfall W. .Bioretention area

On Earth Day 2002, thecommunity of Cradockturned out to clean up

debris in Paradise Creekand planted a 4.5-acre

riparian buffer.

PAGE 16

Implemented: Norfolk Naval Shipyard’sNew Gosport Housing Area

SITE DESCRIPTION

Norfolk Naval Shipyard’sNew Gosport landfill, on ParadiseCreek, was designated a Superfundsite for disposal decades ago oftoxic sandblast material. The Navysite was re-engineered to create 1.9acres of pristine wetlands incooperation with Elizabeth RiverProject. The site was transformedfrom toxic wasteland to wetland in afew months. More than 20,000wetland plants were installed andthe project saved the shipyard about$750,000. Upland from the wetlandis a slope with some vegetation, to agrassy area with a few mature trees,which was the former GosportHousing site (the houses wereremoved several years ago).Erosion was beginning to occuralong the slope, and runoff waschanneling down the slope and theconcern was that it would put unduestress on the wetland. A 4.5-acreriparian buffer and no-mow zonewere created on Earth Day 2002 tostabilize the slope, treat some of therunoff, and add valuable habitat.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

Riparian buffers, forestedareas alongside a river or creek,remove all types of pollutants,including sediment, phosphorus, andnitrate. The buffers often act asshoreline stabilizers and addvaluable habitat for a variety ofwildlife.

Level spreaders might be afuture option to add at this site if the

riparian buffer does not address theerosion problem. Level spreadersspread the flow of the runoff out,creating a thin sheet flow to passthrough the buffer, which willreduce the channeling.

ADVANTAGES

The riparian buffer requireslittle maintenance, except to water ituntil it is established. Riparianbuffers are very effective at treatingrunoff. The riparian buffer is theperfect choice for the Gosport site asit is the perfect compliment to thenewly created wetland and is one ofthe few practices that will work wellto reduce erosion.

COSTS

The 4.5-acre riparian bufferof native trees was planted forapproximately $10,000 includingdesign, plants, mulch, and sitepreparation.

CONCERNS

There is some concern thatthere will be significant tree loss,because of the quality of the soil.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

New Gosport is at the“headwaters” of Paradise Creek,which is an ideal location forrestoration. Headwaters wereidentified as a high priority forrestoration, conservation andpollution prevention in a master plandeveloped for the Elizabeth RiverProject by URS Corp.

PAGE 17

SITE DESCRIPTION

Adjacent to Paradise Creek,the Peck Iron and Metal site hadserved as a recycling yard for metalproducts for more than 50 years.

Peck Land Co. became anactive partner with the ElizabethRiver Project in 2001 andconstruction is scheduled for early2003 for a major stormwaterdemonstration project, along withenhanced wetlands and forestedbuffers plus a new conservationeasement at this site.

Our assessment showed thatmost of the runoff from the sitesheetflowed into a “relic” tidalwetland cove, because of a bermalong the shoreline. This same bermpartially disconnected the tidalwetland from the creek. Some ofthe runoff from the site flowedthrough an old pipe crossing therelic wetland, ultimately dumpingdirectly into the creek.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

Two stormwater wetlandswill be created along the edge of thetidal wetland to capture and treat therunoff from the site. One smalllinear wetland will be sited along anopen ditch that runs along the

western boundary of the property. Asecond larger wetland will beconstructed to intercept threedrainage swales that drain much ofthe property. Diversion dikes willbe constructed to channel somesurface flow from upland areas intothe stormwater wetlands.

The total size of the twowetlands to serve this drainage areawould be approximately half anacre. During heavy rain, shouldcapacity be exceeded, the runoffwould overflow across a long linear,broad-crescent weir into the restoredtidal wetland. This weir helpsdiffuse the flow as it enters the tidalwetland. Native vegetation in thestormwater wetlands includeCommon Rush, Cattails,Pickerelweed, and Soft StemBulrush.

In addition to stormwaterenhancements, the relic wetland willbe reconnected to the creek byremoving the berm. The wetlandwill also be enlarged by 9,000square feet and enhanced with ariparian buffer around the perimeterand along the entire shoreline. Therestoration project will culminate ina permanent conservation easementof more than five acres borderingthe creek, with a forested buffer tobe planted.

This former recycling yard is the future site of a model stormwater wetland and riparian buffer.

Underway: Peck Iron & Metal Scrapyard

PAGE 18

ADVANTAGES

The watershed area is morethan 35 acres and much of therunoff currently drains straight intoParadise Creek without treatment.Ample room exists to construct thetwo stormwater wetlands and theriparian buffer. The landowner iswilling and has already begunplanning for the BMPs to beconstructed. Due to the“Brownfield” nature of this site,stormwater improvements couldhave a significant impact on waterquality on the adjacent creek. Theexisting tidal wetland is perfectlysituated for polishing any runoffoverflow from the stormwaterwetlands.

The riparian buffer will treatthe runoff from a portion of the site,create valuable habitat, and has anadded bonus of screening theindustrial site from the residentialneighborhood across the creek.

CONCERNS

There is a potential buyerinterested in redeveloping the site.Will the BMPs be adequate for thefuture industrial activity? The buyeris meeting cooperatively with thestormwater team as this goes topress. While an environmentalassessment has been conducted, is

there unidentified contamination?This a large multi-faceted

project, and the complexities ofpermitting, construction, and timingof plantings all are variables thatmust be addressed.

COSTS

Assuming the stormwaterwetlands in total comprise abouthalf an acre, an approximate cost forthe stormwater wetlands aloneshould range from $30,000 to$60,000 depending upon the amountto be excavated. The majority of thecost is borne by excavation andhauling; however, additional moneywould be needed to create the twoweirs. The diversion dikeconstruction could total 1,000 linearfeet and may increase the total cost,perhaps by another $10,000. Therestoration of the tidal wetlandcould cost between $20,000 to$35,000. Total cost for the projectcould easily reach over $100,000,but may be as low as $60,000.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

This project was funded in2002 by a Community LegacyGrant, Small Watershed Program,with matching funds from NOAA,Oceans Trust, and Omega Protein.

Runoff is a significant problem at the Peck site. Construction of a stormwater wetland is funded for 2002-03.

PAGE 19

SITE DESCRIPTION

We were excited to find avacant lot at the base of a 70-acrewatershed draining much of theCradock neighborhood ofPortsmouth. The site of theproposed wetland is immediatelyadjacent to Paradise Creek. Thewetland would be sited next to aresidential area comprised of singlefamily homes and an apartmentcomplex. The available land isowned by the apartment owners andis contiguous to the apartment'sparking lot, which floods duringheavy rain or extreme tides.

A stormwater wetland isthe most effective way to removenutrients, particularly nitrogen andphosphorus, from urban watersheds,and less risky than a wet pond (withits greater depth), but enough spacefor one is rare in such a highlydeveloped area. With the highwater table and available space, thisspot is suitable.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

The stormwater wetland will

be shallow with two forebays,where portions of twosubwatersheds would drain into thewetland. The practice would be keptseparate from tidal waters ofParadise Creek. The wetland wouldbe planted with freshwatervegetation such as Rose Mallow,Pickerelweed, Rush, and Iris. Toprovide a continual water source,the wetland will be constructed byexcavating to the seasonally lowground water table. Since the thewater table is so close to thesurface, pumps may be needed tobring the stormwater up from thepipes to the wetland.

ADVANTAGES

This wetland has severaloutstanding advantages:

1. The proposed wetland'sproximity to Paradise Creek. Oncetreated the water will directly draininto Paradise Creek.

2. An opportunity to treat asignificant portion of the runofffrom a 70-acre developedwatershed.

Site for Action: Cooper Street at Reid Avenue

This vacant lot at the corner of Cooper and Reid was an inspiration tostormwater investigators looking for a practice site near Paradise Creek,

who recommend constructing a stormwater wetland here.

PAGE 20

3. From the predominantlystable urban residential compositionof the watershed the targetpollutants are likely to be nitrogenand phosphorus. Stormwaterwetlands such as this are regardedas the premier practices to treatthese two pollutants.

4. Public visibility. Theremay be an opportunity toincorporate a public park into thestormwater wetland.

5. Principal benefit of usingpumps: excavation volume and totalcost dramatically decrease. Averageexcavation depth will be reducedfrom five feet to one foot. Becausesome regrading may be required,some of the excavated soil can beused on site.

CONCERNS

The stormwater wetlandmay not alleviate local flooding onthe apartment parking lot.

It still must be determined asto how much of the 70 acrewatershed could be treated by thisstormwater wetland.

There is nodefinite landowneragreement, howeverinitial discussion with theproperty owners indicatesan interest on their part.One possible solution isfor the City ofPortsmouth to acquireeither the property or aneasement to the property.This would relieve thetax burden on thelandowner and couldmake the project morepalatable to them.

Another concernwould be addressed bythe city assuming controlof the BMP: conductingmaintenance of the

wetland and the pumps.A physical concern with this

project is the pipe invert depth. Thetwo culverts, which drainunderneath the field, may be deep.If that were to be the case, thepotential cost would increase.

COSTS

To capture runoff and allowfree-flow to Paradise Creek, 1 or 2pumps should be installed. Totalpump costs range from $20,000 to$30,000:• Pump purchase, $7,000 to $10,000• Control box & sensors, $4,000 to

$5,000• Manhole 4' diameter by 6' depth,

$3,000 to $4,000• Grating, $1,000• Installation, $5,000 to $10,000

The cost of excavation couldrange from $10-15/cubic yard,which is substantially higher thanfirst estimated. Optimistically, aone foot excavation would be$10,000 to $20,000.

Other costs includevegetation and outlet construction.

Estimated costs for eachare $5,000 to $7,000 and$5,000 to $10,000,respectively.

Total costs rangefrom $40,000 to$70,000. If the parkinglot needs to be raised toreduce the flooding,costs could escalatesubstantially. In addition,if the soil needs to behauled over 2 miles thecosts could even increasemore. If the soil is ofreasonable quality, thereis a possibility that itcould be used at the siteor nearby and thereforethe cost of hauling wouldbe eliminated.

Investigators determinedpipe slopes this way.

PAGE 21

SITE DESCRIPTON

This regional trash-to-energyplant presents an expanse of parkinglot and rooftop. An industrial site, ithosts heavy trucks carryingresidential and commercial waste.

The site’s drainage flows to asingle outfall, then channels througha modest riparian buffer on ParadiseCreek, which provides minimaltreatment for the runoff. There isvery limited room near the outfallfor a BMP.

SPSA, a River Star, not onlywants to improve the environment,but also desires to be a goodneighbor. A tree planting wasimplemented in November 2002 toscreen the industrial facility fromthe neighborhood across the creek.The trees also act as a buffer for asmall portion of runoff on the site.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

The southern edge of theparking lot borders Paradise Creek.Here there is some available greenspace that could be potentially

retrofitted with small bioretentionareas or raingardens.

A portion of the parking lotwould need to be closed offtemporarily for construction of theBMP’s. If significant paved areas re-grading is necessary, the projectcosts could balloon. When placingthe bioretention areas, excavationwill be necessary and utilities couldrestrict the size and depth of thebioretention areas.

Since demand on the parkinglot is high and tearing it up wouldcreate a major disruption, a feasiblealternative to bioretention isinstallation of mechanical retrofits.Mechanical inserts such as Inceptoror Stormceptor would need regularmaintenance and are costly, butwould be able to effectively treatmuch of the runoff.

While runoff improvement isbeing pursued, an urban forest wasplanted in fall of 2002. The bufferwas designed by a student volunteerfor a graduate-level sustainablelandscaping class. The buffer,which also serves as a screen to the

Underway: Southeastern Public ServiceAgency (SPSA)

Facing Paradise Creek: one confronts acres of impervious surface at SPSA’senormous waterfront trash facility. Even this stormwater issue can be solved to

the satisfaction of all partners.

PAGE 22

neighborhood, includes native treessuch as Holly, Red Maple, WaxMyrtle and Loblolly Pine. The one-acre site of the planting was alsoturned into a no-mow zone to addhabitat value.

CONCERNS

The site is difficult to retrofitfor many reasons. First, the parkinglot is very close to the water’s edge.Secondly, the site has been filled,and the elevation is quite high,compared to the outfall pipe, which,in comparison, is fairly low, makingnatural devices such as stormwaterwetlands difficult, if not impossible.

The mechanical retrofits willrequire more maintenance thanbioretention and will be more costly;however, employees currentlychange oil socks in all the inletsregularly, so maintenance is notexpected to be a concern.

COSTS

If bioretention is chosen, theamount of regrading of the parkinglot will influence costs. Other itemsto cover include diversion of traffic,and modification of the inlets. If thestormwater is to be routed from theparking lot to the BMP, the lot will

need to cut into and resealed.Shallow excavation of the devicescould be expected to cost between$5,000 and $10,000. However,improvements to the parking lot andpaved areas could range in cost froman additional $5,000 to $20,000,depending on which inlets areretrofitted for diversion.

The mechnical retrofits varywidely in price from $5,000 to$25,000 each. With four inlets thecost could run from $20,000 to$100,000.

The urban forest that servesas a screen and a buffer costapproximately $1,500 for the trees.The design was donated andvolunteers provided planting labor.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Bio-retention areas or raingardens can be expensive ifappearance is not a factor;permeable pavement would notwithstand the heavy truck traffic;and proprietary drain devices canalso be costly.

In consideration of the valueand the high demand of the parkinglot, mechanical retrofits are likely tobe the best choice to treat runoff forthis site, in spite of the higher cost.

Volunteers plant an urban forest at SPSA that will act as a screen and a buffer.This trash-to-energy-plant, also a River Star, is located on Paradise Creek.

PAGE 23

Best Site for ActionRiver's Edge Development

Sites Assessed Lenox Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wetland constructionRiver's Edge Development . . . . . . . .Low Impact Development (LID) US Coast Guard ISC . . . . . . . . . . . .Inlet device Virginia Zoological Park . . . . . . . . .LID practicesErnie Morgan Env. Center . . . . . . .Stormwater reuseMyrtle Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Raise streets; rain gardenKnitting Mill Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . .Riparian bufferSteamboat Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Riparian bufferRoberts Rowing Center . . . . . . . . . . .Rain garden

This degraded ditch in the Lenox neighborhood is being transformed into a large stormwater wetland.

Additional Sites Assessed

PAGE 24

Site for Action: River's Edge Development

SITE DESCRIPTION

River’s Edge in Chesapeakeis a plan for an environmentally-friendly development on an old steelmill site with lots of possibilities.The developer is open to employinginnovative stormwater practicesthroughout his property. Because theElizabeth River Project and othersare able to “get in at the groundfloor” there is a chance River’sEdge could be a relativelyecologically sound neighborhood.

Three features make the siteespecially enticing for stormwaterpractices. Firstly, a large portion ofthe site is in sandy soils. Secondly,the seasonally high water tablethroughout much of the buildableland is several feet below thesurface. Thirdly, there is asurprising amount of fall to the riverbanks along the back side of theproposed home sites.

PRACTICE DESCRIPTION

The first two features abovemake the site ideal for permeablepavement as well as simplebackyard rain gardens. Becausetraffic will be light in certain areas(a limited amount of daily trafficand relatively light vehicles),permeable pavement is an option fordriveways plus some roadways.

The third will allow surfaceflow to be directed into communalrain gardens. The developer hasalready allocated space for thislarger rain garden construction.

Finally, in a relatively lowdraw a wetland could be created intowhich stormwater runoff would flowand be treated. The wetland wouldrun the length of one of the streets.

ADVANTAGES

The use of the permeablepavement will reduce thedeveloper’s stormwater quantitymitigation requirement in addition toallowing for infiltration of pollutantsinto the shallow groundwater.

The developer is planning toleave a substantial amount of thesite as buffers and wetlands throughwhich the groundwater will flow.These practices will treat infiltratedpollutants passing through their rootzones in the shallow groundwater.

A large constructed wetlandand riparian buffers make the newproposed development very rain-friendly.

CONCERNS

The plans for thisdevelopment have not passedsignificant regulatory hurdles,including wetlands permitting andzoning variances. The developmentmay never be built, in spite ofexcellent environmental potential forboth execution and model practices.

COSTS

Since the stormwaterimprovements can be in place earlyin the construction process, theincrease in cost attributable toinstalling permeable pavement maybe minimized and easily passed onto “green” homebuyers.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

With a little effort it mightbe possible to incorporate even more“green” principles here.

PAGE 25

Stakeholders representing a broad range of interests met with Bill Hunt (right)and the Stormwater Team to evaluate proposals for action.

The Elizabeth River Projectstrived to bring all stakeholders andtechnical experts in priority focusareas of the Elizabeth River to thetable to inform them of this project,determine their concerns, solicittheir opinions of progress to date,and request their guidance inmaking plans for the future. Manyof these representatives providedkey data and invaluable assistanceon site visits.

The list included: laymen(citizens in affected neighborhoods),technical experts (engineers fromthe Stormwater Department), anddecision-makers (representativesfrom River Star industries and city,state, and regional agencies such asthe Norfolk Public WorksDepartment, the VirginiaDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality, and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency).

A Stormwater Roundtablewas held March 27, 2002, at theSheraton Norfolk Waterside Hotel,in addition to one-on-one visits andinterviews. During the Roundtable,proposed projects were ranked forWater Quality Impact, FundingLikelihood, Innovation Value,Priority, Roadblocks, Opportunities,Cost Effectiveness, NeighborhoodSupport, Transferability, and PublicVisibility, with plenty of opportunityfor comments and discussion.

The will of participants wasthat the most feasible site toimplement would be the Corps ofEngineers parking lot, since theusual barriers (funding, participatingpartnerships) are perceived to benegligible. However, the FloatingWetland Garden ranked high fortransferability, visibility andinnovation value.

Stakeholder Involvement

Cheryl Atkinson, United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency Region III

Diana Bailey, US Army Corps ofEngineers

Mike Barbachem, URS Corp.Cherryl Barnett, Elizabeth River

Project BoardMike Barnett, Southeastern Public

Service AuthoritySharon Baumman, US Navy

Regional EnvironmentalGroup

Holly Baumstark, SoutheasternPublic Service Authority

Joe Braun, Norfolk homeownerErnie Brown, Virginia Dept. of

Conservation & RecreationJohn Carlock, Hampton Roads

Planning District CommissionCathy Coleman, Downtown Norfolk

CouncilRichard Conti, Nauticus, The

National Maritime CenterFaculty and students of Cradock

Middle SchoolJohn Deuel, Friends of Norfolk's

Environment and NorfolkEnvironmental Commission

Wilkie Din, US Navy RegionalEnvironmental Group

Charlie Dolbey, Dolbey MarineRick Gregor, Island EstatesEric Gunderson, Southern Branch

NurseryGary Heflin, United States Coast

Guard - Integrated SupportCommand, Portsmouth

Ron Holcomb, United States CoastGuard - Integrated SupportCommand, Portsmouth

Mike Host, Norfolk Naval ShipyardWilliam H. Hunt, North Carolina

State University John Keifer, City of NorfolkDeborah H. Lamb, US Army Corps

of Engineers

Cindy Linkenhoker, City ofPortsmouth’s GreenwoodDrive Project

Mark Mansfield, US Army Corps ofEngineers

Dave McGuigan, United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency Region III

Kathy Mooney, Norfolk NavalShipyard

Michael Nickelsburg, TidewaterCommunity College

City of Norfolk, VirginiaPinar Ozdural, Old Dominion

UniversityDavid Peck, JSP Land CompanyMelanie Pesola, Norfolk's Business

Partners for Clean WaterCity of Portsmouth, VirginiaRob and Kathy Powell, Norfolk

Boat WorksWalter Priest, Virginia Institute of

Marine ScienceSteve and Peggy Rahimpour,

Paradise Creek homeownersKathleen Redfern, Back Porch

GroupBuz Rees, City of NorfolkRoseanne Scott, People for the

Ethical Treatment of AnimalsMadeleine Sly, Harbor Place

CondominiumsMeade Stith, US Army Corps of

EngineersMr. and Mrs. Stringer, Pilot House

CondominiumsKaren Truxal, US Army Corps of

EngineersKristi Unzicker, US Navy Regional

Environmental GroupHugo Valverde, Hampton Roads

Planning District CommissionHoward Webb, Webb Technologies,

Inc.Scott Whitehurst, Norfolk

Department of Public Utilities

Stormwater Stakeholdersfor the Win-Win Project