Data_Quality_Information:
Attribute_Accuracy:
Attribute_Accuracy_Report:
Assumptions were made that all data used for producing this coverage were accurate. Every effort was
made to keep variables
and items consistent by using amls to do the processing. Draft maps produced from this coverage and
associated coverages
were used to double check results.

Logical_Consistency_Report:
Polygon and chain-node topology present. The coverage was checked for dangles, misplaced arcs, and
improperly labeled polygons.
Where mistakes were found, corrections were made. Although the coverage was checked throughly, this
does not guarantee that it is
mistake free.

Completeness_Report:
All tidal shoreline included in the adopted digital shoreline coverage were analyzed for every parameter
modeled.

Lineage:
Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Publication_Date: 2002
Title: Chesapeake Bay SAV Coverage 1971-2000
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Gloucester Point, Virginia
Publisher: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Source_Scale_Denominator: 24000
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1971
Ending_Date: 2000
Source_Currentness_Reference: publication date
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: SAV
Source_Contribution: presence/absence of SAV

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Publication_Date: 1974-1988
Title: Tidal Marsh Inventory
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Gloucester Point, Virginia
Publisher: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1974
Ending_Date: 1988
Source_Currentness_Reference: publication date
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: TMI
Source_Contribution: wetlands data

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Publication_Date: 19990527
Title: Virginia Land Cover Data Set
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: raster digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Sioux Falls, SD USA
Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1986
Ending_Date: 1993
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: LU
Source_Contribution: attribute information

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator:
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage (DCR)
Publication_Date: 2002
Title: Natural Heritage Resources
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Richmond, VA
Publisher: Department of Conservation and Recreation
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 2002
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: RTE
Source_Contribution:
presence/absence of rare, treatened, or endangered species, unique natural communities, and
significant geologic
formations.

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Virginia Marine Resource Commision (VMRC)
Publication_Date: 2002
Title: Shellfish Grounds - Public and Private Leases
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 2002
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: VMRC1
Source_Contribution: lease locations

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Virginia Marine Resource Commision (VMRC)
Publication_Date: 2001
Title: Shellfish Condemnation Zones
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Single_Date/Time:
Calendar_Date: 2001
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground condition
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: VMRC2
Source_Contribution: location of condemnation zones

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Data Center, GIS Team
Publication_Date: 1997
Title: Bathymetric one and two meter low water contours
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Annapolis, MD
Publisher: US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1938
Ending_Date: 1938
Source_Currentness_Reference: ground conditions
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: BATH
Source_Contribution: location of 2m bathymetry line

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Publication_Date: 1991
Title: Mean High Water Shoreline Position, Virginia
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Gloucester Point, Virginia
Publisher: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1964
Ending_Date: 1987
Source_Currentness_Reference: date of USGS map
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: SHL
Source_Contribution: shoreline position

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Publication_Date: 2002
Title: Virginia Shoreline Exposure
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: Gloucester Point, Virginia
Publisher: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Type_of_Source_Media: vector digital data
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1964
Ending_Date: 1987
Source_Currentness_Reference: date of USGS map
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: FETCH
Source_Contribution: distance to nearest shoreline

Source_Information:
Source_Citation:
Citation_Information:
Originator:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory
Publication_Date: 2002
Title: National Wetlands Inventory by 7.5' Quad
Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: vector digital data
Publication_Information:
Publication_Place: St.Petersburg, Florida
Publisher: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Source_Scale_Denominator: 24000
Type_of_Source_Media: mylar separate
Source_Time_Period_of_Content:
Time_Period_Information:
Range_of_Dates/Times:
Beginning_Date: 1981
Ending_Date: 2000
Source_Currentness_Reference: date of map
Source_Citation_Abbreviation: NWI
Source_Contribution: provided location mudflats

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Virginia tidal shoreline (SHL) along tributaries to the western and eastern shores of the Chesapeake
Bay were selected
and buffered 30m inland and 200m seaward.
Process_Date: 2002

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Shoreline segments 600 meters in length alongshore were produced. An existing coverage generated
for computing
shore exposure (FETCH) was the basis for this coverage. An aml was written to automate the
process. Using ArcInfo
on a UNIX workstation, the aml checks the direction of each arc, flipping arcs as needed. Arc
segments are combined
and unsplit to make new segments approximately 600m long. Arc nodes were converted to points.
Using the NEAR
command, arcs were drawn from these points to the nearest point on the landward 30m buffer arc.
These short arcs
were labeled 'dividers' in the .aat.
Process_Date: 2002

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Stream centerlines were created in streams less than 400m wide. The THIESSEN command was used
to generate many
arcs. Any arc intersecting a 10m shoreline buffer was deleted. The remaining arcs were cleaned
manually. The
completed centerline coverage was combined with the 30_200m buffer coverage and the divider arcs.
The divider arcs
were extended to close the polygons. The polygons or 'windows' are the analytical blocks for the
Marina Siting project.
Process_Date: 2002

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Each polygon was examined for dangling arcs, missing divider arcs, and misplaced divider arcs.
Polygons were coded
for general location and for county.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Three coverages where created from the marina windows coverage representing the three major
criteria categories in
the marina siting suitability model; habitat, water quality, and design.
Process_Date: 2002

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
An AML was written to process the steps below. In most cases, the criteria coverage was identitied
with the windows
coverage. A frequency was run using the windows id and a key variable in the criteria coverage. Each
windows
polygon was analyzed to find the criteria and then coded appropriately.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The tidal marsh inventory (TMI) coverage was used to satisfy the wetlands criteria for the Habitat
and Water Quality
categories in the marina siting suitability model. Wetland types were put into groups as designated by
the Wetland
Guidelines. Each group was given a marina suitability ranking where 0 would be unsuitable and 6
would be highly
suitable. Tidal freshwater communities were ranked "0", Group1 = 1, Group2 = 2, Group3 = 3, Group4
= 4, Group5 = 4,
and absent(no wetlands) = 6. More than one wetland group could occur within an analytical 'window'.
In such cases the
tmiranksum was found by determining the percent of each group within the 'window', multiplying the
percent by the
rank, and then summing the ranks. The TMI coverage and the windows coverage were "identitied",
the above analysis
performed, and the resulting score for each polygon analyzed was transfered into the habitat and
water quality
coverages.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The shellfish grounds criteria used coverages of public and private leases (VMRC1). These coverages
were identitied
with the windows coverage. A frequency was run sorting on the unique id of the windows coverage
and the lease
coverages. If a lease was present in a window (i.e. polygon), then the ranking = 0, otherwise the
ranking = 5. Scores
were calculated using ArcInfo's TABLES program and then joined back into the habitat coverage.
Additionally, every
analysis polygon that contained a public lease was also tagged with a '-98'. This code automatically sets
the marina
suitability rank to be low.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Threatened and endangered species is one of the criteria for the habitat category. Buffered points
showing the
approximate location of rare, threatened, or endangered species, unique communities, and significant
land formations
were obtained from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (RTE). This coverage was
overlaid with the
windows coverage. Each window polygon was examined for the presence or absence of an rte
polygon. If an rte was
present it ranked 0, if absent it rank 5. If a state or federal listed endangered species was present, the
polygon was
tagged with a '-98'. Any polygon with a '-98' would automatically be scored as low suitability.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Submerged aquatic vegetation is another criteria for the habitat model. For each polygon analyzed, if
SAV was present
between the shore and the 2m bathymetric contour, the rank = 0; if SAV was outside the 2m
bathymetric contour
(depth>2m), but within the analysis window then the rank = 1; if no SAV was present, the rank = 5.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The Riparian forest scores were used in the habitat and the water quality suitability models and
therefore show up in
both coverages. A 30m shoreline buffer was used to clip the large landuse coverage (LU) into a
manageable size for this
project. Forested landuse includes conifer, deciduous, and mixed forests, as well as woody wetlands.
These groups
were dissolved into one forest category. The riparian ranking was determined by the percent of
forest within the
buffer zone in each analysis window. The ranking is as follows: 100-80.1% forested = 0; 80-60.1%
forested = 1; 60-40.1%
forested = 2; 40-20.1% forested = 3; 20-1.0% forested = 4; <1% forested = 5.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Shellfish condemnation zones (VMRC2) were used as one of the criteria for water quality. If no
condemnation zones
were present within an analysis polygon then the score = 0. If a condemnation zone was present and
it was seasonally
condemned, the rank = 4, if it was permanently condemned, the rank = 5.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
To rank the dredging distance (a water quality and design criteria) to the 2m bathymetric contour
(BATH), the
shoreline needed to be buffered with several different widths. The five buffers were unioned,
identitied with the
bathymetry coverage, and finally overlaid with the windows coverage. Ranks were calculated using
the lowest buffer
distance to the bathmetry line as follows: distance

200m = 0; 200-150.1m = 1; 150-100.1m = 2; 100-50.1m = 3; 50-10m = 4;

<10m = 5. The closer the 2m bathymetric contour is to the shoreline the less likely dredging will be
required which is a
design benefit, and minimizes impacts to water quality.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Proximity to the channel (a design criteria) uses the data obtained in the dredging distance as a
surrogate for a
coverage which delineates true channel position. If the distance to the 2m bathymetric contour is less
than 15 m then
the rank = 5, otherwise the rank is 0.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Wave height is also a design criteria. A previously created coverage (FETCH) containing distance to
the nearest shore
was used as a surrogate for wave height. If the average fetch was less than 2km, the fetchrank = 5,
otherwise the
fetchrank = 0. Here, as fetch increases, the likelihood of increased wave height is greater.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
The navigation and safety criteria for marina design also used the fetch coverage. Any windows
polygon that was not
intersected by the 2m bathymetry received a navrank = 0. Polygons that were intersected by the 2m
bathymetry used
the fetch coverage to obtain the average creek width. The dredgrank values were used to determine
distance to the 2m
contour. To score a rank of 5, the distance to the 2m bathymetry contour had to be less than half the
creek width. For
example: dredgrank = 4 means the 2m bathymetry contour is 10-50m offshore. So, the creek width
must be no less
than 100m wide to earn a score of 5.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Existing uses include aquaculture (VMRC), oyster reefs (VMRC), and public beaches (VIMS). These
coverages were
used to determine presence/absence within each analysis polygon. If absent then the rank = 5,
otherwise the rank = 0.
Process_Date: 200205

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Mudflat polygons were extracted from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) digital coverages. The
following codes
were used to identify desired mudflats: E2USM*, E2USN*, E2US3M*, E2US3N*, E2US4M*, E2US4N*,
E2FLM*, and
E2FLN*. If a mudflat was present in an analysis window, the rank = 0, if absent the rank = 5.
Process_Date: 200207

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Scores within each suitability coverage (habitat, water quality, and design) were summed. The
summed scores where
divided into three equal ranges and given the suitability ranking of low, moderate, and high. The
three suitability
coverages were then combined into one coverage, mrnafinal. The rankings of each category where
summed
(finalsumrank), divided into 3 groups, and assigned final rankings (finalrank). Any polygons within
the habitat or final
coverages that were tagged with the code '-98', were automatically given a low suitability ranking.
Process_Date: 200207

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Two methods of determining final scores were used. The first method (a numeric summary) is
described above. The
second method uses the category rankings from each of the three suitability coverages. A rank of low
= 1, moderate =
2, and high = 3. The new final rank (nfinalrank) was determined by summing the new scores (found in
nhabrank,
nwqrank, and ndrank) and assigning a new rank based upon the sum (low = 3, 4; moderate = 5, 6, 7;
high = 8, 9).
Process_Date: 200207

Process_Step:
Process_Description:
Twenty eight 1:100,000 scale map plates covering the tidal waters of Virgina were developed. Four
maps (habitat,
design, water quality, and final) where created in ArcGis for each plate. All maps will be served on the
web.
Additionally, the final maps will be presented in a hard copy report.
Process_Date: 200207