DOCSLIB.ORG

A Water Quality Study of the Elizabeth River: the Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Water Quality Study of the Elizabeth River: the Effects A WATER QUALITY STUDY OF THE ELIZABETH RIVER: THE EFFECTS OF THE ARMY BASE AND LAMRERT POINT STP EFFLUENTS by Bruce J. Neilson Special Report No, 75 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering A Report to Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Yattern Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 William J. Hargis, Jr. Director May 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. Conclusions and Recommendations ........... 1 Chapt Chapter 3 . The Fate of Materials Discharged into the Elizabeth River System ................ 12 Chapter 4 . Water Quality in the Elizabeth River System .................................... 44 Chapter 5 . Summary ................................... 52 Chapter 6 . Acknowledgements .......................... 54 Chapter 7 . References ................................... 55 Appendix A . Hydrologic and Climatological Data ........ 56 Appendix B . Data on Sewage Treatment Plants Discharging to the Elizabeth River System ................................... 66 Appendix C . Biological Surveys ........................ 71 Appendix D . Data from Water Quality Surveys and Dye Studies ............................... 83 Appendix E . Elizabeth River Model ..................... 103 CHAPTER 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) An analysis of the slack water data from 1974 indicates that when strong stratidication exists in Hampton Roads, there will be strong vertical stratification in the Elizabeth River system as well. For these conditions, a non-tidal circulation will be set up which will enhance the exchange of water between the Elizabeth River and Hampton Roads. Therefore, water quality conditions within the ~lizabethkill be improved by this additional flushing. 2) Although tidal currents in the Elizabeth River system are weak and the maximum speeds are on the order of 0.5 knots (0.25 m/sec), mixing due to tides and other factors is not weak. In fact, the mixing mechanisms are suffi- ciently strong to oqercome vertical and horizontal density differences, resulting in a well-mixed and nearly homo- geneous body of water which may reach from Craney Island to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyards, These conditions arise when the freshwater flows to the James and the Elizabeth Rivers are low and stratification in Hampton Roads is moderate to weak. This can occur anytime during the year. 3) When the Elizabeth River is well-mixed, the non-tidal circulation is very weak or non-existent. Con- sequently residence times are quite large. The time re- -- - - -- - - - - --- -- - - -- - - - -- -- quired for the system to reduce the amount of an injected substance to 10% of the initial amount for the September 1973 hydrographic conditions varies from 13 days for sub- stances introduced near Craney Island to 40 days for sub- stances released in the upper reaches of the Southern Branch. 4) Water temperatures, especially in the Southern Branch, are elevated due to thermal discharges from power generating stations. Values between 25O and 30° centigrade have been measured in September 1973. It is believed that these high temperatures, in combination with the long residence time, cause a significant portion of the oxygen demand of waste waters to be exerted within the Elizabeth River System. 5) Field surveys have found violations of the current dissolved oxygen standards during several months of the year, primarily the summer months, and over several miles of the river. 6) Since the assimilation capacity of the river is limited by physical factors beyond man's control, the only remaining method to maintain water quality standards is to reduce the loadings of oxygen demanding substances tothesystem and/or to move the p~int~njectioncloser to the river mouth. Unfortunately, some sources are difficult to control (e.g. non-point sources and urban runoff) and advanced treatment is expensive. The dis- persion and residence times are such that a change in the location of the Lambert Point outfall within the Elizabeth River system (e.g. discharge near the present Army Base outfall) is expected to produce only a very modest improvement in water quality. Therefore, it is believed that DO violations will continue to occur until the total input of oxygen demanding substances is greatly reduced. 7) At this time it is not possible to assess the effects of moving the Army Base and Lambert Point out- falls into Hampton Roads with any certainty, since the characteristics of the circulation there are not well-known, It is believed that the water which leaves the Elizabeth River during ebb tide tends to retain its identity and, to a great extent, returns on the subsequent flood tide, If this is true, then the discharge point would have to be located either well into the natural channel at a depth of 20 feet or more or at or beyond Sewell's Point before the water quality in the Elizabeth River was improved significantly. CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION In the past decades the Hampton Roads metropolitan region has experienced rapid population growth and industrial development. The Norfolk-Portsmouth portion of that region, which includes slightly over two-thirds of the population of the total area, is centered on the Elizabeth River system. This river receives the waste products which normally are generated by industrial and population centers: domestic waste waters, thermal discharges, and wastes generated by industry, shipbuilding and shipping. As a result, the Elizabeth is "an example of an excessively utilized waterway in regard to waste assimilation" (Pheiffer, et al., 1972). Two large municipal sewage treatment plants (STPss), the so-called Army Base and Lambert Point plants of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, discharge 14 and 25 million gallons per day (MGD; 0.6 and 1.1 cubic meters per second) of treated waters respectively to the Elizabeth River system. The present study was undertaken to investigate the means by which and the rates at which materials discharged into the Elizabeth River are dispersed through and flushed out of the system. The primary focus of this exercise was to determine whether the existing outfall sites for the two STP's were so situated to minimize effects on water quality and if this were not the case, to note superior sites. The Elizabeth River System The Elizabeth River system is comprised of the main stem of the Elizabeth (from Sewell's Point to Town Point), the Lafayette River and the Western, Eastern and Sazkh-Bra~~&s-ass kewni;n4%gur c3 1. T-fleELiz-afxrth is part of the Intracoastal Waterway maintained by the Corps of Engineers. At the head of the Southern Branch the Waterway bifurcates, providing two inland routes between Chesapeake Bay and Albermarle Sound. One route passes through Great Bridge along the Chesapeake and Albemarle Canal, down the North Landing River and into Currituck Sound. The locks at Great Bridge control the flow of water and mark the point where the tidal waves from the two water bodies meet. Since both halves of the Waterway are tidal, it bas been stated that there is no net flow through the locks, and therefore that this waterway does not con- tribute any freshwater to the Elizabeth River system (Corps of Engineers, 1974). However, it is possible to have a net flow if certain relationships exist between the tidal phases and amplitudes on the two sides of the locks. It also must be noted that water level fluctuations in Currituck Sound are dominated by the wind rather than the astronomical tides. Therefore, there very well could be a net flow into or out of the Elizabeth River system, but to this date, no measurements have been made by the Corps or other agencies which would allow this flow to be estimated Western Branch Southern Branch Great Bridge STP Figure 1. The Elizabeth River Syskem. or calculated. For this study the flow from the Chesapeake and Albermarle Canal has been assumed to be zero. The second route follows the Dismal Swamp Canal and provides access to Albemarle Sound near Elizabeth City, North Carolina. From an hydraulic poin_ttoffviewW,- the Dismal Swamp represents the high point of this region and water flows away from Lake Drumrnond in nearly every direction. The flow to the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is controlled by the locks and spillway at Deep Creek. This flow of water is the only natural Source of water which has been measured over the years. The long-term average monthly flows and the monthly flows for recent years ake gkven in Figure A-1 and Table A-2 in Appendix A. The long- term yearly average flow through the locks and spillway is 3 2309 million gallons per month (8,740,000 m /month) or 77 3 MGD (3.4 m /sec). During most of the year, the major portion of the flow enters via the spillway. ~uringthe dry part of the year, late summer and early fall, the flow is con- trolled by the lockages which increase due to use of the Intracoastal Waterway by small craft. Since the entire drainage basin for the Elizabeth River lies very close to the Atlantic Ocean and entirely within the Coastal Plain provinces, the topographic relief is slight. The maximum natural elevation is on the order of 25 feet above mean sea level. The total area of the drainage basin is around 300 square miles. Urbanization normally increases the portion of rainfall that goes directly into overland runoff and reduces the portion which soaks into the ground and enters the groundwater supply, since large areas are paved or otherwise covered with impervious mater- ials. These three factors, low relief, small drainage a-r-Lu-,-z&lwaz~~~ groundwater flow into the Elizabeth and to increase the magnitude of the peak flows during rainy periods. Thus the freshwater input from the tributaries is low during dry periods and has high peaks during wet periods. Since there are no gaging stations on any of these tributaries, this description remains an estimate of how the system works and may not always hold true.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effects of Tidal Flooding on Estuarine Biogeochemistry: Quantifying Flood-Driven Nitrogen Inputs in an Urban, Lower Chesapeake Bay Sub-Tributary
    W&M ScholarWorks VIMS Articles Virginia Institute of Marine Science 8-2021 Effects of tidal flooding on estuarine biogeochemistry: Quantifying flood-driven nitrogen inputs in an urban, lower Chesapeake Bay sub-tributary Alfonso Macías-Tapia Margaret R. Mulholland Corday R. Selden Jon Derek Loftis Peter W. Bernhardt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/vimsarticles Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons Water Research 201 (2021) 117329 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Water Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres Effects of tidal flooding on estuarine biogeochemistry: Quantifying flood-driven nitrogen inputs in an urban, lower Chesapeake Bay sub-tributary Alfonso Macías-Tapia a,*, Margaret R. Mulholland a, Corday R. Selden a,1, J. Derek Loftis b, Peter W. Bernhardt a a Department of Ocean and Earth Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA b Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Sea level rise has increased the frequency of tidal flooding even without accompanying precipitation in many Sea level rise coastal areas worldwide. As the tide rises, inundates the landscape, and then recedes, it can transport organic and Tidal flooding inorganic matter between terrestrial systems and adjacent aquatic environments. However, the chemical and Nitrogen loading biological effects of tidal flooding on urban estuarine systems remain poorly constrained. Here, we provide the Water quality firstextensive quantificationof floodwaternutrient concentrations during a tidal floodingevent and estimate the Enterococcus King tide nitrogen (N) loading to the Lafayette River, an urban tidal sub-tributary of the lower Chesapeake Bay (USA).
    [Show full text]
  • A Clear Expression of Purpose
    The Park System of Norfolk, Virginia An Analysis of its Strengths and Weaknesses By The Trust for Public Land Center for City Park Excellence Washington, D.C. February 2005 Introduction and Executive Summary A venerable city with colonial-era roots, Norfolk, Virginia, has an increasingly bright future as the center of its large metropolitan area at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. In 2004, with their city in the midst of an impressive civic renaissance, a group of Norfolk citizen leaders became interested in knowing the state of Norfolk’s park and recreation system and how it compares with those of other similar cities. They turned to the Trust for Public Land’s Center for City Park Excellence, which is known for its studies of urban park systems, and contracted for an overview and analysis of Norfolk. With the assistance of the Bay Oaks Park Committee, and with cooperation from city officials, TPL undertook this study of Norfolk’s park system. Data on the system’s acreage, budget, manpower, and planning process was supplemented by interviews with city leaders, park and planning staff and Norfolk’s citizens. Utilizing an extensive database of city park information Norfolk was evaluated both on its own merits and against other American cities. By dint of time and budget, TPL’s analysis is not comprehensive; it only provides an initial set of snapshot views and comparisons. Nevertheless, the findings of this study are clear enough. By almost every measure, TPL finds that while the city of Norfolk has some wonderful parks, scenic riverfronts, tree-lined boulevards and sandy beaches, it simply doesn’t have enough of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamptonroads-Cp.Pdf
    Attachment I: HRSD Collection System Violations VADEQ IR Date of Incident Location Address Receiving Waters Number 2/14/2003 2003-T-1475 Newport News 949 Backspin Court Storm Drain 2/16/2003 2003-T-1470 Norfolk 5734 Chesapeake Blvd Tidal 2/17/2003 2003-T-1472 Norfolk 5734 Chesapeake Blvd Wayne Creek/ Lafayette River 2/18/2003 2003-T-1491 Norfolk Monterey & Bluestone Ave Elizabeth River 3/8/2003 2003-T-1661 Newport News Rt 60 Near Enterprise Dr. Lee Hall Reservoir 4/7/2003 2003-T-1943 Newport News Center Ave PS Hampton Roads Harbor 4/7/2003 2003-T-1944 Hampton N. King Street & MacAlva Drive S/W Branch Back River 4/9/2003 2003-T-1961 Newport News Rt 60, Enterprise Dr & Picketts Lee Hall Reservoir Lane 4/9/2003 2003-T-1963 Newport News 320 North Ave Hampton Roads Harbor 4/9/2003 2003-T-1964 Hampton N. King Street & MacAlva Drive S/W Branch Back River 4/9/2003 2003-T-1966 Suffolk 1136 Saunders Drive Shingle Creek 4/9/2003 2003-T-1989 Newport News 42 Franklin Street Hampton Roads Harbor 4/9/2003 2003-T-1990 Hampton E Gilbert & N. King Street S/W Branch Back River 4/9/2003 2003-T-1991 Hamptonp 3802 Chesapeakep Ave Hamptonp Roads Harbor 4/9/2003 2003-T-1992 Hampton 3847 Chesapeake Ave Hampton Roads Harbor 4/9/2003 2003-T-1993 Hampton Bridge Street PS Salters Creek 4/9/2003 2003-T-1994 Hampton Ivy Home Rd & Victoria Blvd Hampton Roads Harbor 4/10/2003 2003-T-2016 Newport News Center Ave PS Hampton Roads Harbor 4/10/2003 2003-T-2017 Newport News 320 North Ave Hampton Roads Harbor 4/10/2003 2003-T-2018 Newport News 321 North Ave Hampton Roads Harbor 4/10/2003 2003-T-2019 Newport News 42 Franklin Street Hampton Roads Harbor 4/10/2003 2003-T-2020 Hampton N.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Commission Final Performance Report
    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Commission Final Performance Report Project Title: 1619: The Making of America” Project Directors - Cassandra Newby-Alexander and Eric Claville Grantee Institution - Norfolk State University and Hampton University Submission Date – December 9, 2014 1 Narrative Description The NEH-funded project, “Observing 1619,” provided the foundational support for us to host our second 1619: Making of America conference was held on September 18-19, 2014 at Norfolk State University and Hampton University. Planning this conference and accompanying programming targeting teachers has resulted in the creation of a broad-based partnership among various institutions, including the Hampton History Museum and the City of Hampton, our primary partners for 2013-2014. Moreover, our other partners included the College of Liberal Arts at Norfolk State University, Creative Services and Distance Learning at NSU, the NSU Foundation, Student Affairs at Norfolk State University, WHRO, the Fort Monroe National Monument (National Park Service), the Virginia Arts Festival Hampton University, Old Dominion University, Media Park at ODU, the Nottoway Indian Tribe of Virginia, Virginia Wesleyan College, the College of William and Mary’s Lemon Project, the Sankofa Project, the NSU Honors College, and the Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence at NSU. In addition, over the past two years, the project has received funding from the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Commission, Cox Communications, Dominion Resources, the Fort Norfolk Plaza, Bedford/ St. Martin’s Publishing, Pearson Publishing, the Fort Monroe National Monument (National Park Service), the NSU Foundation, Student Affairs at Norfolk State University, the College of Liberal Arts at Norfolk State University, and the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Elizabeth River 2014
    State of the Elizabeth River Scorecard 2014 November 17, 2014 Scientific data compiled & analyzed by: Elizabeth River State of the River Steering Committee 2014, Convened by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and The Elizabeth River Project Summarized and interpreted for the public by: Summary: From Almost Dead to an Average Score of C And Most Notorious Branch is Now the Most Improved Parents might not think a C is too hot, if your kid brings it home from school. But when one of the three most toxic rivers on the Chesapeake Bay brings home a C, that’s reason to celebrate. The Elizabeth River was commonly presumed dead when The Elizabeth River Project entered the picture in 1993. Fast forward to 2014. Area scientists have scored each of the branches of the Elizabeth for an average overall health of C for this urban river. Better news yet: The notoriously polluted Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River shows the most improving trends. This is the long stretch of the river that has been industrialized since before the Revolution; the branch too often in the past was described as devoid of life. For this report, area scientists found improving trends for bacteria, nitrogen, bottom health, and contaminants on the bottom of the Southern Branch. A committee of local, state and regional scientists prepared this State of the River report for The Elizabeth River Project and VA Department of Environmental Quality to determine changes since the last comprehensive scorecard for the Elizabeth River, issued by the same partners in 2008, and to identify trends over the last 10 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth River Presentation
    Restoring One of America’s Greatest Rivers -Elizabeth River - Josef Rieger Deputy Director – Restoration Chesapeake Bay Program’s Toxic Contaminants Workgroup The Elizabeth River Project Mission: Restore the Elizabeth River to the highest practical level of environmental quality through government, business, & community partnerships. 2,000 citizen members 114 River Star facilities Government projects with US Navy, NOAA, US Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA, VA DEQ, VA DCR, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, & Chesapeake. Elizabeth River Watershed • 200 sq. mile Lafayette River watershed Lafayette River • 4 Cities • Great Dismal Swamp Portsmouth freshwater Virginia Beach source Chesapeake • Trapped Estuary Action Plan for Restoring Elizabeth Action 1 – Goo Must Go! Cleanup contaminated sediments Action 2 – Greener shores Action 3 – Reduce bacteria Action 4 – Reduce nutrients Action 5 – Business ethic Action 6 – Protective policies Action 7 – Engage 25,000 citizen soldiers Elizabeth River Sediments Contamination from PAH - highest in the Chesapeake Bay (463 times average for bay) Cancer in the Mummichog Healthy Mummichog Liver Pre-Cancerous Mummichog Liver Cancerous Mummichog Liver Money Point – A Story of Environmental Restoration Money Point Money Point History & Legacy Impacts 12,126,000 12,127,000 Holland 3,454,000 Rotterdam 3,454,000 Ber Lem 3,453,000 3,453,000 Amerada Hess Navigation Channel Surface PAH (mg/Kg) < 45 3,452,000 45 - 100 3,452,000 100 - 500 500 - 1,000 Elizabeth River 1,000 - 2,000 2,000 - 3,000 Terminals > 3,000 Money Point, VA Alt 5A. Dredging in the north and NOTE: Coordinate System: VA State Plane Science Applications International Corporation a sand cap to the south Horizontal Datum: NAD83 A221 Third St.
    [Show full text]
  • Elizabeth River Watershed
    Community Based Restoration of the Elizabeth River – A Story of Success Josef Rieger Deputy Director – Restoration The Elizabeth River Project Mission: Restore the Elizabeth River to the highest practical level of environmental quality through government, business, & community partnerships. ➢ Working on restoring the river for 22 years ➢ 120 River Star facilities ➢ Over 4,000 River Star Homes ➢ Government projects with US Navy, NOAA, US EPA, VA DEQ, VA DCR, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, & Chesapeake Elizabeth River Watershed • 200 sq. mile Lafayette River watershed Lafayette River • 4 Cities • Great Dismal Swamp Portsmouth freshwater Virginia Beach source Chesapeake • Trapped Estuary Best news: • Most improving 10-year trends in the once-notoriously polluted S. Branch • Delisting of the Lafayette River for bacteria • Dropping nitrogen concentrations in: • Southern Branch • Eastern Branch • Main Stem Watershed Action Plan Priorities: ❖ Action: Keep the goo going! ❖ Action: Achieve sustainable development and redevelopment ❖ Action: Restore resilient natural shores ❖ Action: Restore clean water ❖ Action: Create a river revolution Elizabeth River Sediments Contamination from PAH - highest in the Chesapeake Bay (463 times average for bay) Cancer in the Mummichog Healthy Mummichog Liver Pre-Cancerous Mummichog Liver Cancerous Mummichog Liver Money Point – A Story of Environmental Restoration Money Point Money Point History & Legacy Impacts 12,126,000 12,127,000 Phased ApproachHolland 3,454,000 3,454,000 Rotterdam Phase 3- Northern Ber Lem Dredging and Cap Phase 2- Northern Dredging and Sand Cap 3,453,000 3,453,000 Amerada Hess Phase 1- Living Cap Navigation Channel Surface PAH (mg/Kg) < 45 3,452,000 3,452,000 45 - 100 100 - 500 500 - 1,000 Elizabeth River 1,000 - 2,000 2,000 - 3,000 Terminals > 3,000 Money Point, VA Alt 5A.
    [Show full text]
  • Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Dwight L
    Reducing Nutrients on Private Property: Evaluation of Programs, Practices, and Incentives June 2012 HAMPTON ROADS PLPDCPDCANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Virginia Coastal Zone M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION DWIGHT L. FARMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY CHESAPEAKE POQUOSON AMAR DWARKANATH W. EUGENE HUNT, JR. ERIC J. MARTIN * J. RANDALL WHEELER CLIFTON E. HAYES, JR * ALAN P. KRASNOFF PORTSMOUTH ELLA P. WARD KENNETH L. CHANDLER * KENNETH I. WRIGHT FRANKLIN * R. RANDY MARTIN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BARRY CHEATHAM RONALD M. WEST * MICHAEL W. JOHNSON GLOUCESTER COUNTY * BRENDA G. GARTON SUFFOLK ASHLEY C. CHRISCOE * SELENA CUFFEE-GLENN LINDA T. JOHNSON HAMPTON MARY BUNTING SURRY COUNTY ROSS A. KEARNEY * TYRONE W. FRANKLIN * MOLLY JOSEPH WARD JOHN M. SEWARD ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY VIRGINIA BEACH W. DOUGLAS CASKEY HARRY E. DIEZEL * DELORES DARDEN ROBERT M. DYER BARBARA M. HENLEY JAMES CITY COUNTY * LOUIS R. JONES * MARY K. JONES JOHN MOSS ROBERT C. MIDDAUGH JAMES K. SPORE JOHN E. UHRIN NEWPORT NEWS NEIL A. MORGAN WILLIAMSBURG * MCKINLEY L. PRICE * CLYDE A. HAULMAN SHARON P. SCOTT JACKSON C. TUTTLE NORFOLK YORK COUNTY ANTHONY L. BURFOOT * JAMES O. McREYNOLDS * PAUL D. FRAIM THOMAS G. SHEPPERD, JR. THOMAS R. SMIGIEL MARCUS JONES ANGELIA WILLIAMS *EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER PROJECT STAFF JOHN M. CARLOCK, AICP HRPDC DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHITNEY S. KATCHMARK PRINCIPAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNER JENNIFER L. TRIBO SENIOR WATER RESOURCES PLANNER TIFFANY M. SMITH WTER RESOURCES PLANNER FRANCES HUGHEY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT MICHAEL LONG GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER CHRISTOPHER W. VAIGNEUR REPROGRAPHIC COORDINATOR RICHARD CASE FACILITIES SUPERINTENDENT HAMPTON ROADS REGION REDUCING NUTRIENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND INCENTIVES Prepared for the HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cleaner River Starts Here
    Lafayette River Steering Committee Convened by Elizabeth River Project and Chesapeake Bay Foundation Michael Barbachem, URS Corp. Robert Heide, Citizen/M.D. Libby Norris, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Danny Barker, HRSD Todd Herbert, VA Department of Mike O'Hearn, Lafayette Wetlands Partnership Doug Barnhart, DoodyCalls Conservation and Recreation Kevin Parker, HRSD Betty Baucom, Larchmont Elementary School Noah Hill, VA Department of Chad Peevy, Old Dominion University Ella Baxter, The Elizabeth River Project Conservation and Recreation James Pletl, HRSD Lawrence Bernert, Wilbanks, Julia Hillegass, Hampton Roads Josh Priest, The Elizabeth River Project Board Smith & Thomas Asset Planning District Commission Walter Priest, NOAA Pam Boatwright, The Elizabeth River Project Will Hunley, HRSD John Prince, Prince Landscapes Kristie Britt, VA Department Seshadri Iyer, URS Corp. Emma Ramsey, The Elizabeth River Project of Environmental Quality Fleta Jackson, City of Norfolk Joe Rieger, The Elizabeth River Project Jim Cahoon, Bay Environmental Marjorie Jackson, The Elizabeth River Project Joe Rule, The Elizabeth River Project Board Yolima Carr, Hermitage Museum & Gardens Dave Jasinski, Chesapeake Skip Scanlon, Virginia Beach Health Department Holly Christopher, Environmental Communications Mark Schneider, Virginia Zoo Norfolk Environmental Commission Rob Johnson, The Elizabeth River Project Juian Shen, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Tom Cinti, U.S. EPA Daniel Jones, City of Norfolk Amy Simons, City of Norfolk Amry Cox, Knitting Mill Creek Yacht Club John Keifer, City of Norfolk Mac Sisson, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dan Dauer, Old Dominion University Judd Knecht, Citizen John Stewart, Lafayette Wetlands Partnership John Deuel, Norfolk Environmental Commission Andrew Larkin, NOAA Skip Stiles, Wetlands Watch Ken Dierks, Kimley Horn Tommy Leggett, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Randy Stokes, Living River Fred Dobbs, Old Dominion University Kristen Lentz, City of Norfolk Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergence of Algal Blooms: the Effects of Short-Term Variability in Water Quality on Phytoplankton Abundance, Diversity, and Community Composition in a Tidal Estuary
    Microorganisms 2014, 2, 33-57; doi:10.3390/microorganisms2010033 OPEN ACCESS microorganisms ISSN 2076-2607 www.mdpi.com/journal/microorganisms Article Emergence of Algal Blooms: The Effects of Short-Term Variability in Water Quality on Phytoplankton Abundance, Diversity, and Community Composition in a Tidal Estuary Todd A. Egerton 1,*, Ryan E. Morse 2,†, Harold G. Marshall 1 and Margaret R. Mulholland 3,† 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Graduate School of Oceanography, The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-757-683-3595; Fax: +1-757-683-5283. Received: 24 September 2013; in revised form: 28 October 2013 / Accepted: 28 November 2013 / Published: 8 January 2014 Abstract: Algal blooms are dynamic phenomena, often attributed to environmental parameters that vary on short timescales (e.g., hours to days). Phytoplankton monitoring programs are largely designed to examine long-term trends and interannual variability. In order to better understand and evaluate the relationships between water quality variables and the genesis of algal blooms, daily samples were collected over a 34 day period in the eutrophic Lafayette River, a tidal tributary within Chesapeake Bay’s estuarine complex, during spring 2006. During this period two distinct algal blooms occurred; the first was a cryptomonad bloom and this was followed by a bloom of the mixotrophic dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium instriatum.
    [Show full text]
  • Lafayette River Riverfest
    Challenges: Elevated nutrients, from sources such as excess lawn fertilizers The New Lafayetteand other nutrients in runoff, lead to harmful levels of algae. In recent years, a massive algal bloom has emerged each summer in the Lafayette, then spread into the larger Elizabeth River system, robbing the river of A Community Actionoxygen and resulting in fish kills. Plan to Meanwhile, harmful bacteria in the Lafayette contaminate shellfish, making them unsafe for Left: Harmful algae (Cochlodinium) begins to bloom (dark red), August 5, 2008 in the human consumption. Lafayette River. By August 11 (right), the bloom spreads into the rest of the Elizabeth River. Old Dominion University/HRSD data. Disappearance of native vegetation along the shore, Restore the Lafayetteincluding wetland grasses, contributes to high nutrientRiver levels by removing these natural filters. The native oyster, another important filter for the control of algae, has been decimated by disease, overharvesting and poor water quality. One top source of excess nutrients is often ignored - air pollution. As much as 34 percent of the nutrient problem in the Chesapeake Bay is attributed to air pollution. Pollutants in the air eventually fall either to the ground, where it can wash into the water, or falls directly in the water. Wetland grasses filter pollution and create a rich habitat for fish, shellfish and wading birds. While much restoration work remains, the Lafayette River still features about 375 acres of tidal wetlands, half of all wetlands in Norfolk. Photo courtesy of Kenn Jolemore. Lafayette River Restoration - A Watershed Action Plan - 9 Vision: To endow our children Proposed Activities: with safe swimming and fishing Kayak/Canoe Races and Rides in a bountiful Lafayette River.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Portsmouth, Virginia Hampton Roads and Elizabeth River Shorelines
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 9-2010 Shoreline Evolution: City of Portsmouth, Virginia Hampton Roads and Elizabeth River Shorelines Donna A. Milligan Virginia Institute of Marine Science Kevin O'Brien Virginia Institute of Marine Science Christine Wilcox Virginia Institute of Marine Science C. Scott Hardaway Jr. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Milligan, D. A., O'Brien, K., Wilcox, C., & Hardaway, C. (2010) Shoreline Evolution: City of Portsmouth, Virginia Hampton Roads and Elizabeth River Shorelines. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5PT5R This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Evolution: City of Portsmouth, Virginia Hampton Roads and Elizabeth River Shorelines Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia September 2010 Shoreline Evolution: City of Portsmouth, Virginia Hampton Roads and Elizabeth River Shorelines Data Report Donna A. Milligan Kevin P. O’Brien Christine Wilcox C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. Shoreline Studies Program Department of Physical Sciences Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia This project was funded by the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental Quality through Grant #NA09NOS4190163 of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
    [Show full text]