Topics

o Sea Level Rise and the Southern Watersheds

o Ashville Park

o Sherwood Lakes

o Kingston Estates

o Drainage Operations & Maintenance in the Southern Watersheds

PRINCESS ANNE DISTRICT STORMWATER PROJECTS

1

SEA LEVEL RISE AND THE SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS

DR. BRIAN BATTEN, DEWBERRY

2

Flood Complaints

3

City Response to Issues

• Virginia Beach City Council provided funding for a

comprehensive sea level rise and recurrent flooding

assessment and response plan in FY15

• Dewberry, a national consultant firm, retained by the City

to conduct study in January 2015

• City awarded $850k grant from NOAA in March 2016

• Collaborative effort with Stormwater Master Plan

4

Study Goal and Outcomes

Goal: Produce information and strategies that will enable Virginia Beach to establish long-term resilience to sea level rise and associated recurrent flooding

Outcomes:

• A full understanding of flood risk and anticipated changes over planning and infrastructure time horizons

• Actionable flood resilience plans that combine engineered protection measures, and/or floodplain management strategies

• A fine-tuned public outreach process to advance resilience initiatives

5

Watershed Level Plans• Economic and environmental diversity require 4 distinct

plans

6

Comprehensive SLR Study Approach

7

Phase 1: Sea Level Rise/Recurrent Flooding Impacts

• Objective: Identify the location, frequency and potential cost of existing and future flood risk to the City

• How will vulnerability change with increasing flood levels due to SLR?

• Where will we see the flood footprint expand?

• How much more frequent will flooding occur?

• What assets are vulnerable?

• What are the losses, how will they change?

• What assets are at the highest risk?

8

SLR Observations

9

Local/Regional Trends

Rise in Last 50-years

Location Increase, ft

Sewells Point 0.8

Chesapeake Bay

Bridge Tunnel1

Duck 0.7

Oregon Inlet 0.7

Norfolk

Chesapeake Bay

Duck, NC

SLR and Recurrent Flooding

Today’s 1-yr water levelwas the 10-yr water level in the 1950s10

Image Credit: NOAA

VB SLR Planning Scenarios

Life Cycle

Alignment

Time

Horizon/

Time

Period

SLR

ValueRelevance Use

Municipal Planning

20-40 years

2035-20551.5 ft

Comprehensive Plan & Outcomes

Short end of Commercial and Utility

life-cycles

Vulnerability assessment

Key planning value

Basis for evaluation of all adaptation strategies

Critical Infrastructure

Long-term awareness

AdaptiveCapacity

50-70 years

2065-2085

3.0 ft

Utility Infrastructure life-cycle

Transportation infrastructure

lifecycles

Residential structure lifecycles

Secondary vulnerability assessment to provide insight into

long-term risk

Basis for long-term infrastructure decisions

Evaluate cost-effectiveness of additional protection for adaptable

resilience strategies

11

Flood Assessment Conditions

• Tidal• Daily tidal flooding

• Future permanent inundation

• Defined by NOAA, Mean Higher High Water

• Nuisance • Wind-driven surge, extreme tide events

• Repetitive losses/loss of function or service

• Defined by water level analysis

• Storm Surge• Nor’easters, tropical storms, hurricanes

• 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 500-yr recurrence intervals

• Defined by probabilistic analysis12

Southern Watershed Issues – Wind Tides

13

• Southerly winds push water into Back Bay, North Landing River

• Flood low-lying areas

• Instances since early 1900’s

• Ongoing area of focus

• Design water surface elevations in the Virginia Beach Public Works Standards and Specifications exceeds wind tide levels

Credit: SeaGrant

Flood elevations - Not a static increase!

• SLR Integration: • 1.5 ft SLR scenario

• Added as a static increase to surge elevations

• Non-linear aspects captured through re-evaluation of dune erosion and wave modeling over increased water levels.

• 3 ft SLR scenario • Detailed modeling from USACE and North Carolina used to integrate non-

linear response in surge elevations

• Wave modeling and dune erosion also re-evaluated.

14

Projected Changes in Coastal Flooding

City-wide, areas subject to

flooding will increase:

• In 30-40 years: 1.5 times

• In 60-70 years: 2 times

Changes in the Southern

watershed represent 70-

80% of the city-wide total

17

Changes in Flood Risk –Southern Watershed

16

• Flood losses increase due

to deeper, more frequent

flooding

• 3-4 times increase in next

30-yrs

Watershed Today 1.5 SLR 3 ft SLR

Southern 4.62 17.94 165.31

City Total: 23.56 81.76 362.77

Annualized Losses, Millions

Public Engagement

• Capturing Perceptions, Increasing Issue AwarenessFall 2017

• Interactive public sessions to solicit public opinions and perceptions on flood issues and priorities

• Series of public presentations to acquaint public with study process, initial results, path forward

• Solution PerspectivesSpring 2018

• Initial presentation and gathering of public feedback on flood management strategies

• Plan AwarenessSummer/Fall 2018

• Public presentation of final plans and strategy approaches/timelines

17

18

2017 2018Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Impact Assessment

Hazard Analysis and

Mapping

Building Risk Assessment

Water Resources Analysis

Infrastructure

Vulnerability

Strategy Development, Evaluation, Plan Formulation

Lynnhaven Development Evaluation Plan

Southern

Elizabeth River

Oceanfront

Outreach

Public EngagementStudy Introduction,

Engagement

Strategy

Discussion Plan Outreach

If additional time needed for coordination, etc.

Schedule

ASHVILLE PARKCJ BODNAR, P.E., PW-ENGINEERING

19

ASHVILLE PARK ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

20

• CDM Smith performed hydraulic analyses of the Ashville Park stormwater system and developed solution alternatives.

• Model of stormwater system was developed using EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).

• EPA SWMM is a complex mathematical model in widespread use across the country (gold standard).

• Nine months to complete, $218,000 to date

ASHVILLE PARK MODEL CALIBRATION

21

• Photos and information from the neighborhood helped provide guidance and after-the-fact water elevation data

• Public Works installed three water surface level gauges for data

• SWMM Model was calibrated using Tropical Storm Julia & Hurricane Matthew

• The model predicted flood water elevations that were within an inch of actual elevations for both storms

ASHVILLE PARK MODEL CALIBRATION

22

Outfall

The outfall system to Flanagan’s Lane and Sandbridge Road is

inadequate. The rock weir cannot pass nearly enough water during a

storm to keep the stormwater within the banks of the lakes

23

STUDY FINDINGS

The receiving ditches and channels

downstream of the outfall do not

have capacity to handle the

stormwater, resulting in higher water

elevations

When water levels are high in Back

Bay and Ashville Bridge Creek, even

less water can pass the outfall

STUDY FINDINGS (CONTINUED)

24

Subdivision Lakes & Stormwater Piping

▪ The stormwater piping and the lakes are inadequate

▪ There is not sufficient lake area to store runoff until it can drain through the system

▪ Higher water levels in the lakes prevent the stormwater pipes in the streets from draining quickly during and after storms

▪ Even with lowered lake elevations and more lake area, the pipe system cannot carry enough stormwater to keep the streets from flooding during significant events

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

25

▪ CDM Smith evaluated over 25 improvement scenarios and

provided detailed analyses of the four most viable alternatives

▪ All 4 alternatives provide similar benefits; however, no

improvement can provide complete protection from all storm

events (much greater than 100-year event)

▪ All 4 alternatives require major improvements & upgrades to the

neighborhood drainage system (within the streets)

▪ Alternative D is more resilient to future water levels because of

the location of the proposed pump station

▪ Alternative B is more conducive to phasing and its initial phases

can be implemented faster than the initial phases of Alternative D

▪ In addition to flood reduction, all alternatives provide additional

stormwater quality treatment through expanded and new BMPs

(wet ponds)

ASHVILLE PARK – ALTERNATIVE B

26

Hard Cost – $23.5M (does not include acquisition, utility adjustments or environmental mitigation costs)

ASHVILLE PARK – ALTERNATIVE D

27

Hard Cost – $21.2M (does not include acquisition, utility adjustments or environmental mitigation costs)

INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS – PHASED APPROACH

28

▪ The FY2018-23 CIP provides $9 million in funding which will allow for the first phase of Alternative B (a.k.a Scenario 5)

o Considerable decrease in flooding duration

o Incremental improvement in the depth of flooding

o Planning level opinion of cost is $8.2 million

▪ The neighborhood and the developer both indicate a desire to continue with the development as long as there are no adverse impacts to the stormwater system in the existing villages

▪ Public Works Engineering has begun the preliminary engineering design of the Scenario 5 improvements

SCENARIO 5 IMPROVEMENTS

29

POSSIBLE VILLAGE C COST-PARTICIPATION

30

▪ Scenario 5 improvements assume Village C will be developed

▪ HomeFed is interested in proceeding with Village C and cost-participating in Scenario 5

▪ Cost-participation based upon additional cost of the phased approach

▪ Cost share is $5.8M (71%) City, $2.4M (29%) HomeFed for initial phase (Alt. B, Scenario 5)

▪ HomeFed to cost participate up to $2.1M in future phases if Villages D & E proceed

ASHVILLE PARK INTERIM PROJECTS

31

▪ Dedicated 13 CFS portable pump to lower the 15-lake system prior to significant storm events (3” rain or greater)

▪ New weir and portable pump site will be constructed at existing outfall location to allow more discharge from the lake system and also prevent high water backflow into the system

▪ Weir construction scheduled for January 2018

ASHVILLE PARK INTERIM PROJECT

32

SHERWOOD LAKESMIKE MUNDY, P.E., PW-ENGINEERING

33

34

Lake Drainage Area (DA) 364 ac

Lake Surface Area (SA) 123 ac

Sherwood Lakes Sherwood Lakes

Temporary Pumping North Lake

Sherwood Lakes

35

Sherwood Lakes 1. Pump Station (5 CFS) with additional connection for temporary pump and generator

2. Intake pipe for pump station

3. Discharge Pipe from pump station

4. New storm sewer pipe (to provide some interconnection between the two ponds)

Permanent Pump Station Locations

36

KINGSTON ESTATES

(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS KING’S LANDING)

LOCATED ON WEST NECK ROAD

37

NANCY MCINTYRE, P.E., L.S., DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR

KINGSTON ESTATES

38

KINGSTON ESTATES

39

DRAINAGE OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE IN THE SOUTHERN WATERSHEDS

MARK JOHNSON, P.E., OPERATIONS ENGINEER

40

CIP PROJECTS

41

CIP PROJECTS

42

Map ID Project Description Project Location Phase

Stormwater Infrastructure Rehabilitation & Improvements, CIP 7-416

19 Ashville Park Weir 1471 Flanagans Lane Design

25 Land of Promise Ditch Unit ID S8023, S8016 On Hold

27Mill Landing Road/Halstead Shore

Stabilization

1301 Mill Landing Road, 1218 Mill Landing

RoadDesign

29Municipal Center Drainage Infrastructure

SurveyMunicipal Center Surveying

31 Princess Anne Road EnterpriseIntersection of Princess Anne & Nimmo

ParkwayConstruction

38Dam Neck Road Pipe Rehabilitation Phase

II

Dam Neck Road, London Bridge Road, Harpers

RoadDesign

41 Community Canal Unit ID 23160-008D Study

Primary System Infrastructure Improvements, CIP 7-023

45 Mill Landing/Nanney Creek 1852 Mill Landing Road Permitting

48 Off-Road Ditch Program Zone E, K, L, & N Ditches On-Going

Stormwater Pump Station Modifications, CIP 7-412

76 Sherwood Lakes Intake Design

Southern Canal / Lead Ditch and Culvert Improvements, CIP 7-024

Charity Neck Road 3801 Charity Neck Road Scoping

Pleasant Ridge Road 1600 Pleasant Ridge Road Scoping

OFF ROAD DITCH PROGRAM

43

Ditch Cleaning Cycles:

16 years - Original Cycle

8 years - Goal Cycle

12 years - Current Cycle

Other FY 18 Projects:

Canal #2 Inspect/Repair -$300K

Salem Canal Inspect/Repair - $250K

West Neck Creek Inspect/Repair - $350K

STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS

44

▪ Currently 124 open work orders in the Princess Anne District

▪ Roadside Ditch: 11

▪ Cave-in: 81

▪ Pipe Cleaning: 32

▪ Street Sweeping - All City roads are swept 6 times per year (once every other month)

▪ MS4 Inspections

▪ Asset Inspections - 15% of known assets (pipes, structures, ditches) shall be inspected annually

▪ SWMF Inspections – all City maintained SWMF inspected annually, and 20% of the privately maintained SWMF inspected annually.

END OF PRESENTATIONPROCEED TO INFORMATION STATIONS

45