City of Hampton Comprehensive

Waterways
Plan Development
 Work Session Agenda
 Review Committee mission and objectives
 Introduce support resources
 Review relationship with Community Planning Process
 Review Proposed Operating Agreement
 Receive Overview of Key Topics
 Review Community Engagement Components
 Review Project Outline and Briefing Schedule
 Review Past Studies
 Review Arrangements for Community Listening Schedule
 Plan Support Team
 Consultant Support to Committee
 Project Support Director: Ken Dierks, Kimley-Horn and Associates
(KHA)
 Facilitation: URS – Fred Whitley, P.E., (facilitator)
 Technical Support: Karl Mertig (KHA), John Paine, (URS), Rebecca
Francese, REM, Waterways Surveys and Engineers
 Public Involvement Program: Betsy McBride, Todd Solomon, Hampton
Roads Center for Civic Engagement
 Cooperating Partners
 Virginia Institute of Marine Science – Carl Hershner, Marsha Berman
 Hampton Roads Planning District Commission – John Carlock and staff
 City of Hampton
Comprehensive Waterways Management Plan
Project Team Organizational Chart

City Council

Steering
City Staff Public
Committee

Outside
Consultants
Agencies (KHA/URS/HRCCE)
(VIMS, COE, HRPDC)

Primary Points of Contact

•City Staff: Pete Petersen, Lynn Allsbrook, Chuck

Fleming, Terry O’Neill, Gayle Hicks

•Consultants: Ken Dierks, KHA, Fred Whitley, URS,

Rebecca Francese, WSE, Betsy McBride, HRCCE

•Outside Agencies: Carl Hershner, VIMS, John

Carlock, HRPDC
 Key Briefing Topics
 Sea Level Rise/Changing Weather Patterns
 Flooding and Flood Insurance
 Stormwater Management/Water Quality Compliance
 Shoreline Protection
 Waterways Management (Navigation/Dredging)
 State and Federal Agency Perspectives (Regulation &
Funding)
 Draft Schedule
 Nov 30 - Organizational Meeting
 Early January 2011: Community Listening Session
 Balance of January: Topic Background Briefs
 Feb – March 2011: Detailed discussion sessions
(subcommittee meetings)
 April 2011: Steering Committee discussion on draft
recommendations
 Early May 2011: Community “ Checkpoint Meeting” -
 Late May 2011: Committee meetings to revise
recommendations to Council
 June 2011: Committee Presentation to Council
Community Engagement
Plan
 Sea-Level Rise
 Hampton Roads has the highest NOAA current and predicted sea
level increase on the East Coast.
 Estimates range from at least 2.3 and possibly up to 5.2 feet in the
next 100 years with 4.4’ currently predicted.
 Substantial areas of Hampton could be inundated during storms
affecting:
 Life and safety
 Environmental quality
 Flood insurance availability and cost
 Property habitability, values and tax base
 Stormwater conveyance system function - inundation
 Stormwater system treatment effectiveness
 Capital facilities priorities and budgets
 Storm Tracks – Southeast
Virginia

Hurricanes Only

1933 Hurricane

All Tropical Cyclones

 Hurricane Stats – SE Va.

Hurricane Return Period

Tropical Cyclones by Year

 Storm Tide Facts
 Eleven of the highest tides on record have occurred during the past 10
years.
 Five of the top 8 storms have occurred in the past 12 years
 Any storm ranked at #8 or higher probably caused flooding of low lying
properties
 One significant high tide in the 1970's (Apr. 1978 - rank #9)
 Two significant high tides in the 1980's (Oct. 1982 & Apr. 1988 - ranks #17
and #22)
 Six significant high tides in the 1990's - one ranked at #8 or higher
 Seven significant high tides in the 2000's - four ranked at #8 or above
 Hurricane Threats
STORM SURGE – STORM INTENSITY

CAT 1 NNW 20 mph

CAT 2 NNW 20 mph

CAT 3 NNW 20 mph

 Issue Summary
 Affects all other issues
 Long term likelihood of increased flooding frequency and duration
throughout the City
 Inundation of existing drainage systems
 Will create long term capital needs for system modifications to deal with
inundation and flooding
 Affects flood zone designation and flood insurance
 Must be factored in to any future stormwater quality improvement measures
 Poses hazard mitigation policy issues for recurrent flooding areas
 Background
 Over 50% of the city is below the 8’ contour and susceptible to
flooding
 FEMA has updated flood plain maps which are currently out
for public comment
 New maps will be adopted by Council in 2011
 City has applied for the Community Rating System (CRS) to
identify measures to reduce flood loss thereby reducing flood
insurance premiums
 City has just finished public hearings on new floodplain
ordinance.
 Peninsula Hazard Mitigation Plan is being updated
 City about to hire Hazard Mitigation staff
Net Change from Maps
 1,740
 properties with a house or structure added to the new AE
zone
 2,734
 properties with land affected by the new AE zone without
touching the main structure on the property
 2,568
 properties with a house or structure left out of the new AE
zone
 212
 properties in the new floodway

July 14, 2010 FIRM Map Update

 Issue Summary
 Public has expressed strong and clear concerns about
restricting building in the 100 year floodplain
 City will need to adjust offset above Base Flood Elevation in
the future
 Sea level rise will require other changes in the zoning
ordinance for development in the flood zone
 City will need to identify flooding threats to HAZMAT sites
and key municipal infrastructure
 Likely long term demand on City resources to implement
hazard mitigation program
 Potential shrinking federal support for flood protection and
hazard mitigation
 Stormwater Management
Regulations
 MS-4 Permit Renewal – Stringent new conditions anticipated
for discharge of stormwater from municipal storm sewers.
Currently being negotiated with DCR & EPA
 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) –
pollution diet requiring stormwater reduction and treatment
through Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPS) in 2011.
 State Stormwater Regulation Amendments – new stormwater
quality discharge requirements affecting new development and
requiring local administration of Stormwater General Permit
Program.
 Challenges
 Estimated TMDL compliance costs for Chesapeake Bay
TMDL exceed 1.1 billion (HRPDC)
 Public infrastructure/property will bear a disproportionate
burden of water quality retrofits due to limited
redevelopment demand in future.
 Huge demand on capital budget – lack of adequate
funding sources. Federal funding may shrink.
 Challenge to effectively regulate but not chase away new
development
 City will inherit management of stormwater general
permit program including program costs
 Shoreline Management
Challenges (Ownership)
 Bay Fronting Shoreline ~ 8.3 Miles
(South tip of Fort Monroe to North End Point)
 Federal - Fort Monroe (29%)
 Public – Buckroe, Salt Ponds, Grandview Nat Pre (44%)
 Private – Thimble Shoals Court, Malo Beach, White
Marsh, Grandview (27 %)
 Fort Monroe and the Nature Preserve (59%) are roughly the
same length at opposite ends of the shoreline.
 Central 41% of the shoreline is interspersed private and public
ownership – with an inlet segmenting the reach.
 Shoreline Management
Challenges (Feasibility/Cost Benefit)
 Limited Federal Funding for shoreline projects
 Even more limited State Funding
 Public Dollars – Public Property
 In the past – Thimble Shoals and Malo Beach residents have
been highly resistant to grant access easements for shoreline
protection projects. (They receive secondary benefits from
public projects – ie. beach re-nourishment.)
 Grandview residents may have more incentive, but in the past
B/C ratios for projects on that reach have been minimal.
 In terms of B/C ratios - Recreation and Habitat are
secondary to Storm Damage and Flooding Protection.
 Shoreline Management
Goals
 Storm Protection/Damage Reduction
 Flood Protection / Damage Reduction
 Recreation
 Habitat Preservation/Enhancement

The priority may vary depending on the individual reach.

 Shoreline Management
Can’t physically stop storm tides and sea level rise – so we
have to plan and manage for the affects.
Strategies
Hold the Line
 Hard shoreline alternatives – seawalls and revetment
 Enhanced Dunes (geotube or rock cores)
Shoreline Buffers –
 Beach re-nourishment and living shorelines
Hydrodynamic Alterations –
 breakwaters, groins, jetties
 Possibly near shore reefs/near shore disposal
Composite Strategies
 Combination of strategies
 Dredging and Navigation
Maintenance
 City has Major claim on capital budget for long term
maintenance
 2007 estimate for 9 largest projects was $30M in new and
next maintenance dredging not counting out year costs
 Hampton River, Back River, Salt Ponds, are major focus
 Salt Ponds maintenance cost $1.1M since June 2003
 City currently bearing all the cost with no off-setting tax
source other than General Fund
 Economics of dredging often don’t work (no positive
B/C ratio)
 Issue Summary
 Need long term navigation maintenance plan
 Identify new sources of funding for long term navigation
maintenance (waterfront property tax increases, navigation
maintenance districts, cost sharing, TIF zones etc.)
 Require future new projects to demonstrate a positive B/C
ratio
 Investigate long term sites for dredge material disposal
State and Federal Environmental Regulations

 Affect any work in wetlands and waters of the US

 Require public interest review for most types of work in
aquatic systems
 Constrain drainage modification solutions
 Must be factored into any response to the issues discussed
 City should consider partnering with agencies on long term
strategies for dealing with sea level rise, flooding,
stormwater management and shoreline stabilization.
 Federal funding may be available for some improvements