Bonney Cove marsh restoration: staff recommends delay after permitting agencies find submerged‑vegetation obstacles

City staff updated the council on permitting problems that have halted construction of a planned Bonney Cove marsh restoration — a nature‑based project intended to slow wind‑driven flooding in the Southern Rivers watershed — and asked for direction on next steps.

Toni Utterback, city engineer, said the project had been selected after alternatives screening and was designed to restore marsh terraces and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in Bonney Cove. Staff described the scope as creating 41 terraces, establishing about 14 acres of upland and 13 acres of marsh habitat, and planting more than 130,000 native plants. The project is included in the November 2021 flood‑protection bond package and, according to staff, was “fully funded” with roughly $15 million in grants (two National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grants and $5 million from the state Community Flood Preparedness Fund) and $31.4 million in local funding for a total appropriation of $46.5 million.

Utterback told council that agency surveys in September 2024 found SAV at 75 sampled sites across the project area, contrary to earlier consultant surveys that had recorded little SAV. The Habitat Management Division of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) told city staff that, because of the extensive SAV, its guidance would prevent recommending approval of a permit unless SAV protection requirements could be satisfied. The Department of Historic Resources also asked for a marine archeological remote‑sensing investigation, stating the area “may contain submerged cultural materials from prehistoric settlements.”

Utterback presented four options for council: (1) keep the current design and monitor SAV annually for five years and reinitiate permitting if SAV recedes; (2) redesign to avoid all SAV (which staff said would eliminate more than 50% of terraces and substantially reduce flood‑mitigation benefits); (3) delay the project and pursue a legislative carve‑out in the next General Assembly session (staff recommended this option); or (4) cancel and return the grants. Councilmembers expressed frustration at the permitting impasse, noting that the project had been discussed with agencies and the public for years and was a city‑funded, nature‑based mitigation pilot. Several councilmembers supported staff’s recommendation to delay and seek a legislative carve‑out; staff also committed to schedule community meetings and legislative outreach.

Ending: Council directed staff to brief affected constituents, pursue legislative options and return with updates; staff cautioned the grant implications are uncertain and that any path will affect funding timelines.