12-14 meeting presentation

8/8/2019 12-14 Meeting Presentation

1/48

December 14, 2010


2/48

Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan

Steering Committee

Session 2-Meeting Agenda

Item

I. Recap/Review of minutes from November 30th meeting

II. Committee Members observations of waterway challenges

III. Overview of previous studies- what has been done before?

IV. Establishing subcommittees-proposal for review/comment

V. Preparing for the Public Listening Session-agenda, logistics

VI. Overview of the Web site/demo10 min

VII. Review syllabus- future meeting topics/dates/logistics

VIII. Public comments/general questions


3/48

Hampton Comprehensive WaterwayManagement Plan

Steering Committee Meeting

December 14th, 2010

I. Recap/Review of Nov 30th meeting minutes


4/48



December 14th, 2010

II. Committee Observations of Waterway Challenges


5/48



Committee Discussion of Challenges

(Questions to Start the Conversation)

1) What waterway/storm water issues are most important to you for

improving your quality of life? And,what waterway/storm water

issues do you think are the most important for improving this

communitys quality of life?

2) Based on the information you have been provided thus far, are there

other topics/issues that you would like to see added to the background

briefings?

3) Would you like to spend more time discussing the mission of the

Steering Committee, the meeting format, or the proposed process for

accomplishing the mission?

4) Do you have any other comments or concerns about the topics, process

or timetable for the development of this Plan?


6/48



December 14th, 2010

III. Overview of Previous Studies


7/48


Steering Committee Briefing

on Previous Studies

December 14, 2010

1) Newmarket Creek Flooding

2) Mary Peake Watershed Study

3) Farmington Canal Area Drainage Study

4) Pochin Place Watershed Study

5) Corps of Engineers Ches. Bay Shoreline

6) Citywide Flood Plan Management Plan

7) Salt Ponds Inlet Management Plan

8) Back River Flooding and Shoaling


8/48

Newmarket Creek Flooding Report

March, 2007

Prepared by: Citizens Committee with technical

support from URS Corporation


9/48


10/48

Hampton Comprehensive Waterway

Management Plan

Summaries of Previous Studies

Newmarket Creek Flooding Citizens Committee

March, 2007

Findings/Recommendations: The citizens committee considered,

and discarded, the following options in its report to council:

Widen/deepen Newmarket Creek- this would be difficult, if not

impossible to permit, it would be very expensive, and, because the

water level in the canal is tidally influenced, it would not be

effective when the tide was higher than normal. Build berms or levees to contain the flood waters within the creek-

this would be prohibitively expensive and would create other issues

for dealing with surface water runoff behind the berms. Construct levees and storm water pumping stations( New

Orleans solution)- this is cost prohibitive. Stop new development- the watershed is already built out ( the

horse is out of the barn), and redevelopment is required to provide

measures to address both water quality and quantity under the citys

development regulations

Build retention ponds along the creek to store storm water- becauseof the tidal impacts, these ponds would fill up and no storage would

be gained. However, such ponds would be beneficial farther up in

the watershed, beyond the tidal range.( the Mary Peake watershed

study recommends one such pond in an undeveloped area off Todds

Lane)


11/48

Newmarket Creek Flooding Citizens Committee

March, 2007

The committee considered, and endorsed, the following options inits report to Council:

1) Increase the frequency of inspection/maintenance of the storm

sewer system.

2) Modify the storm sewer outfalls into Newmarket Creek to stop

the tidal flow back into the system, with tide gates/flapper

valves3) Purchase homes with repeated flood damage and demolish

them or raise them above the flood level.

4) Construct a flood gate at the mouth of Newmarket Creek, in

the vicinity of Mercury Blvd. ( this would involve the

construction of a moveable wall that could be raised before a

major storm event to block the tide from flowing back up into

Newmarket Creek, which would allow for more storage ofstorm water)

5) Keep the waterway clean and educate citizens about the effects

of dumping in the creek.


12/48

Mary Peake Watershed Study

March, 2009

Prepared by: URS Corporation


13/48


14/48


15/48

Farmington Canal Area Drainage Study

October, 2007

Prepared by: Technical Services Group


16/48


17/48

Pochin Place Watershed Study

September, 2007

Prepared by: URS Corporation


18/48


19/48

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline- Hurricane and Storm

Damage Reduction Study

April, 2002

Prepared by: US Army Corps of Engineers


20/48

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline


21/48

Citywide Flood Plain Management Plan

March, 2002

Prepared by: Gannett Fleming, Inc


22/48



23/48

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Buckroe Area


24/48


Management Plan

Summaries of Previous Studies

Flood Plain Management Plan

Required as a part of the Corps of Engineers Shoreline

Damage Reduction Study

Primarily looked at the Buckroe area

No new projects or programs were proposed by the study

Found existing city programs were adequate to meet the

Corps requirements in the following categories:

1. Managing Storm water2. Regulating Development

3. Preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas

4. Providing Emergency Services

5. Developing Education Programs

6. Protecting the Beachfront


25/48

Salt Ponds Inlet

Management Plan

January, 2007

Prepared by: Kimley Horn and Associates


26/48



27/48

Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Salt Ponds Inlet


28/48

Back River Flooding and Shoaling Report

August, 2007

Prepared by: Citizens Committee with technical

support from URS Corporation


29/48



30/48

Factory Point Peninsula

Before


31/48

Back River Flooding and Shoaling Citizens Committee- Report to

City Council- August 2007

Findings/Recommendations: The Back River Flooding and ShoalingCommittee included the following findings and recommendations in

their report, and in their presentation to city council:

Findings:

The Factory Point Peninsula is a naturally occurring land feature that

has been depicted on maps since the 1600s. Until the mid 1990s thisHampton landmark has provided storm protection to the Back River

(storm surge, wave action, shoaling, etc) The Factory Point peninsula is the city of Hamptons property. The Corps of Engineers does not consider the Factory Point

peninsula breach to be an emergency, thus any work on the breach

will require local funds with permits from state and federal agencies.

The orientation of the Back River makes it susceptible to storm surgeand wave action with sustained winds from noreasters.

Weather patterns and storm tide history suggest we have enjoyed a

lull in major storms and normal weather may be returning with

more frequent storms. Hamptons shorelines are experiencing serious erosion due to wave

action.

Loss of shorelines impacts wildlife habitat, recreational facilities(Grandview Nature Preserve, Buckroe Beach, etc). Based on historical tidal records, sea level has been rising at the rate

of 1.4 feet over the past 100 years.


32/48

9) Dredging will alleviate a serious safety problem and aid navigation

in the channels of Back River. Dredging may provide suitable materialneeded to restore the Factory Point peninsula.

10) Breakwaters have proven to be successful at preventing erosion;

local examples are Buckroe Beach and Ft Monroe.

11) The permit application for dredging at the mouth of the Back

River and for the restoration of the Factory Point peninsula is alreadyunderway by the city of Hamptons consultant, URS.

12) Short term solutions require local dollars; long term solution will

require regional partnerships and/or state and federal help.

13) There is a strong concern in the communities along the southwest

branch of the Back River that a flood gate at Mercury Boulevardwould have an adverse impact on their neighborhoods. Because of

this concern, many citizens at the community checkpoint meeting did

not support the flood gate. The committee feels strongly that repairing

the breach will reduce flooding in the entire Back River watershed,

with no adverse impacts to any neighborhoods.


33/48

Back River Flooding and Shoaling Citizens Committee- Report to

City Council- August 2007

Recommendations:

1) Obtain all necessary state and federal permits as soon as possible and

restore( dredge) the boating channels near the mouth of the Back River

Use suitable dredged material to restore the Factory Point peninsula,

and employ appropriate measures to protect the shoreline along that

peninsula of land.

2) Immediately install and maintain electronic tidal measuring devices oninside/outside of Back River and along other locations in Back River.

Monitor water level fluctuations before and after the breach repair at

Factory Point.

3) Immediately institute 5 mph No Wake Zone in the vicinity of Factor

Point.

4) Strengthen flood plain management efforts of the city ( FEMA flood

plain map update, development in adjacent shoreline areas, floodinsurance awareness, mitigation grants for raising houses, erosion

control, etc)

5) Develop and implement a shoreline management/protection plan along

Hamptons Chesapeake Bay shoreline from Factory Point to Fort

Monroe. This should include other shoreline areas in Back River ( usin

breakwaters and/or other measures as appropriate) and other measures

as appropriate ( 1980 Dune Act).


34/48

6) Increase maintenance of the citys storm drain system and increase

public awareness/education of protecting waterways and drainage

systems. Enforce laws against illegal dumping.

7) Educate the public on measures to mitigate flooding losses on their

property. Develop public notification plans for flooding events.8) Educate the public on wetland use and development.

9) Request the Corps of Engineers to develop a regional sediment

management plan for the Chesapeake Bay shoreline.

10) Seek all possible outside funding for waterway maintenance/shoreline

protection from regional partnerships and/or state and federal sources.

11) Continue the Back River Flooding and Shoaling Citizens Committee

to monitor the progress of these recommendations and consider

enlarging the committee in the future to address ongoing waterway

maintenance and shoreline protection issues.


35/48

Factory Point Peninsula

After


36/48



December 14th, 2010

IV. Establishing Subcommittees


37/48



December 14th, 2010

V. Preparing for the Public Listening Session


38/48


Management Plan


December 14th, 2010

VI. Overview of the Web site/demo


39/48

mpton Engages

ome and About

Page


40/48

HamptonEngages

Email Sign

Up Box


41/48

HamptonEngages

Learn and

HistoricalStudies

Page


42/48

HamptonEngages

Participate

and

Discussion

orum Page


43/48

Hampton

Engages

ForumRegistration

Page


44/48

Hampton

Engages

ResourcesDocumentation

Page


45/48



December 14th, 2010

VII. Review Syllabus of future meetings


46/48

ssion 1- Organizational Meeting of Steering Committee (Nov 30th)

Welcome- Pete Background/mission/community plan- Pete/Terry Introductions/Members Perspectives- Fred/All Roles/Proposed Operating Agreement- Fred/Betsy Overview of Topics/Key Issues- Ken Public Engagement Plan Overview/Listening Session- Betsy Proposed Committee Meetings Outline/ Next Steps- Fred

ssion 2-Previous Studies Overview/Listening Session Prep (Dec 14th)

* Community Listening Session * (Jan 11th)

sion 3- Educational Topics- Part 1 Mother Nature at Work

Rising Sea Level/Changing Weather Patterns (Jan 25th)

What does Rising Sea Level mean to Hampton? Skip Stiles-Wetlands Watch Why so many storms lately? Bill Sammler- NOAA Debrief of Community Listening Session ( time permitting)

sion 4- Educational Topics- Part 2 (Feb 8th)

A) Storm Water Management

Watersheds/Modeling- John Paine, URS Storm Water Run off -101- John/ Fred Hamptons Storm System Maintenance- PW staff(?)

B) Water Quality Regs-the Real Approaching Storm

EPA Clean Water Act- Karl Mertig, KHA Ches Bay Model(?)- John Other?


Steering Committee

Meetings Outline

(as of 12/02/10)


47/48


Meetings Outline

C) Flooding Regulations and Emergency Response

Emergency Preparedness- Tracy Hanger( Fire Dept)New Flood Plain Mapping- Gayle Hicks ( Public Works)Flood Insurance Program(?)-speakerDevelopment Regulations- Gayle

ssion 5- Educational Topics- Part 3 (Feb 15th)

D)Waterways Management-

Dredging Issues- KenWhos to blame for all of the siltation?Other

E) Shoreline Protection

Shoreline Management Plan for Chesapeake Bay- Rebecca

Rivers/Creeks Shoreline Protection- RebeccaWetlands Protection - VIMS

F) Federal/State/ Regional Agencies Perspectives

Permitting 101- COE rep/KenFederal/State Funding Programs- speaker?HRPDC John Carlock

etailed Discussion Sessions ( Feb- Mar)

eering Committee Discussions on Draft Recommendations (April)

*Community Checkpoint Meeting * ( May)

ommittee Meeting(s) to Revise Report to Council ( May)

*Committee Presentation to Council * ( June)


48/48



December 14th, 2010

VIII. Public Comments/general questions

12-14 meeting presentation

Documents