12-14 Meeting Presentation
Content
December 14, 2010
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Session 2-Meeting Agenda
Item I.
Rec eca ap/R p/Revie eview w of of mi minu nute tess fr from No Novemb vember er 30th 30th mee eeti ting ng
II. II.
Comm Commit itte teee Memb Member erss obse observ rvat atio ions ns of wate waterw rway ay ch chal alle leng nges es
III. III.
Overvi Overview ew of pre previo vious us studie studiess- what what has has been been done done befor before? e?
IV. IV.
Establ Establish ishing ing subcom subcommit mittee tees-p s-pro ropos posal al for re revie view/c w/comm omment ent
V.
Prep Prepar arin ing g for for th thee Pub Publi licc Lis Liste teni ning ng Se Sess ssio ionn-ag agen enda da,, log logis isti tics cs
VI. VI.
Over Overvi view ew of th thee Web Web site site/d /dem emo1 o10 0 min min
VII. Review Review syllabussyllabus- futur futuree meeting meeting topics/da topics/dates/l tes/logis ogistics tics VIII. VIII. Public Public comment comments/ge s/general neral questions questions
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
I. Recap/Review of Nov 30th meeting minutes
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
II. Committee Observations of Waterway Challenges
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting 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 community’s 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?
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
III. Overview of Previous Studies
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Briefing on Previous Studies December 14, 2010
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Newmarket Creek Flooding Mary Peake Watershed Study Farmington Canal Area Drainage Study Pochin Place Watershed Study Corps of Engineers Ches. Bay Shoreline Citywide Flood Plan Management Plan Salt Ponds Inlet Management Plan Back River Flooding and Shoaling
Newmarket Creek Flooding Report March, 2007 Prepared by: Citizens Committee with technical support from URS Corporation
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 creekthis 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 city’s development regulations • Build retention ponds along the creek to store storm water- because of 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)
Newmarket Creek Flooding Citizens Committee March, 2007
The committee considered, and endorsed, the following options in its 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 valves 3) 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 of storm water) 5) Keep the waterway clean and educate citizens about the effects of dumping in the creek .
Mary Peake Watershed Study March, 2009 Prepared by: URS Corporation
Farmington Canal Area Drainage Study October, 2007 Prepared by: Technical Services Group
Pochin Place Watershed Study September, 2007 Prepared by: URS Corporation
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline- Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Study April, 2002 Prepared by: US Army Corps of Engineers
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Citywide Flood Plain Management Plan March, 2002 Prepared by: Gannett Fleming, Inc
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline – Buckroe Area
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway 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 water 2. Regulating Development 3. Preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas 4. Providing Emergency Services 5. Developing Education Programs 6. Protecting the Beachfront
Salt Ponds Inlet Management Plan January, 2007 Prepared by: Kimley Horn and Associates
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Salt Ponds Inlet
Back River Flooding and Shoaling Report August, 2007 Prepared by: Citizens Committee with technical support from URS Corporation
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Factory Point Peninsula
Before
Back River Flooding and Shoaling Citizens Committee- Report to City Council- August 2007 Findings/Recommendations: The Back River Flooding and Shoaling Committee 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 1990’s this Hampton landmark has provided storm protection to the Back River (storm surge, wave action, shoaling, etc) The Factory Point peninsula is the city of Hampton’s 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 surge and wave action with sustained winds from nor’easters. 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. Hampton’s 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.
9) Dredging will alleviate a serious safety problem and aid navigation in the channels of Back River. Dredging may provide suitable material needed 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 already underway by the city of Hampton’s 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 Boulevard would 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.
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 on inside/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 Factory Point. 4) Strengthen flood plain management efforts of the city ( FEMA flood plain map update, development in adjacent shoreline areas, flood insurance awareness, mitigation grants for raising houses, erosion control, etc) 5) Develop and implement a shoreline management/protection plan along Hampton’s Chesapeake Bay shoreline from Factory Point to Fort Monroe. This should include other shoreline areas in Back River ( using breakwaters and/or other measures as appropriate) and other measures as appropriate ( 1980 Dune Act).
6) Increase maintenance of the city’s 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.
Factory Point Peninsula
After
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
IV. Establishing Subcommittees
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
V. Preparing for the Public Listening Session
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010 VI. Overview of the Web site/demo
ampton Engages Home and About Page
Hampton Engages Email Sign Up Box
Hampton Engages Learn and Historical Studies Page
Hampton Engages
Participate and Discussion Forum Page
Hampton Engages Forum Registration Page
Hampton Engages
Resources Documentation Page
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
VII. Review Syllabus of future meetings
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meetings Outline (as of 12/02/10) Session 1- Organizational Meeting of Steering Committee • • • • • • •
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
Session 2-Previous Studies Overview/Listening Session Prep * Community Listening Session * Session 3- Educational Topics- Part 1 “Mother Nature at Work” Rising Sea Level/Changing Weather Patterns • • •
A) Storm Water Management
• •
Watersheds/Modeling- John Paine, URS “Storm Water Run off -101”- John/ Fred Hampton’s Storm System Maintenance- PW staff(?)
B) Water Quality Regs-“the Real Approaching Storm” • • •
(Dec 14th) (Jan 11th)
(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)
Session 4- Educational Topics- Part 2
•
(Nov 30th)
EPA Clean Water Act- Karl Mertig, KHA Ches Bay Model(?)- John Other?
(Feb 8th)
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan 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(?)-speaker •Development Regulations- Gayle Session 5- Educational Topics- Part 3
(Feb 15th)
D) Waterways Management-
•Dredging Issues- Ken •Who’s to blame for all of the siltation? •Other E) Shoreline Protection
•Shoreline Management Plan for Chesapeake Bay- Rebecca •Rivers/Creeks Shoreline Protection- Rebecca •Wetlands Protection - VIMS F) Federal/State/ Regional Agencies Perspectives
•“Permitting 101”- COE rep/Ken •Federal/State Funding Programs - speaker? •HRPDC – John Carlock Detailed Discussion Sessions
( Feb- Mar)
Steering Committee Discussions on Draft Recommendations
(April)
*Community Checkpoint Meeting * Committee Meeting(s) to Revise Report to Council *Committee Presentation to Council *
( May) ( May) ( June)
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
VIII. Public Comments/general questions
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Session 2-Meeting Agenda
Item I.
Rec eca ap/R p/Revie eview w of of mi minu nute tess fr from No Novemb vember er 30th 30th mee eeti ting ng
II. II.
Comm Commit itte teee Memb Member erss obse observ rvat atio ions ns of wate waterw rway ay ch chal alle leng nges es
III. III.
Overvi Overview ew of pre previo vious us studie studiess- what what has has been been done done befor before? e?
IV. IV.
Establ Establish ishing ing subcom subcommit mittee tees-p s-pro ropos posal al for re revie view/c w/comm omment ent
V.
Prep Prepar arin ing g for for th thee Pub Publi licc Lis Liste teni ning ng Se Sess ssio ionn-ag agen enda da,, log logis isti tics cs
VI. VI.
Over Overvi view ew of th thee Web Web site site/d /dem emo1 o10 0 min min
VII. Review Review syllabussyllabus- futur futuree meeting meeting topics/da topics/dates/l tes/logis ogistics tics VIII. VIII. Public Public comment comments/ge s/general neral questions questions
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
I. Recap/Review of Nov 30th meeting minutes
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
II. Committee Observations of Waterway Challenges
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting 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 community’s 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?
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
III. Overview of Previous Studies
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Briefing on Previous Studies December 14, 2010
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Newmarket Creek Flooding Mary Peake Watershed Study Farmington Canal Area Drainage Study Pochin Place Watershed Study Corps of Engineers Ches. Bay Shoreline Citywide Flood Plan Management Plan Salt Ponds Inlet Management Plan Back River Flooding and Shoaling
Newmarket Creek Flooding Report March, 2007 Prepared by: Citizens Committee with technical support from URS Corporation
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 creekthis 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 city’s development regulations • Build retention ponds along the creek to store storm water- because of 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)
Newmarket Creek Flooding Citizens Committee March, 2007
The committee considered, and endorsed, the following options in its 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 valves 3) 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 of storm water) 5) Keep the waterway clean and educate citizens about the effects of dumping in the creek .
Mary Peake Watershed Study March, 2009 Prepared by: URS Corporation
Farmington Canal Area Drainage Study October, 2007 Prepared by: Technical Services Group
Pochin Place Watershed Study September, 2007 Prepared by: URS Corporation
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline- Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Study April, 2002 Prepared by: US Army Corps of Engineers
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Citywide Flood Plain Management Plan March, 2002 Prepared by: Gannett Fleming, Inc
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline – Buckroe Area
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway 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 water 2. Regulating Development 3. Preserving Environmentally Sensitive Areas 4. Providing Emergency Services 5. Developing Education Programs 6. Protecting the Beachfront
Salt Ponds Inlet Management Plan January, 2007 Prepared by: Kimley Horn and Associates
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Salt Ponds Inlet
Back River Flooding and Shoaling Report August, 2007 Prepared by: Citizens Committee with technical support from URS Corporation
Chesapeake Bay Shoreline
Factory Point Peninsula
Before
Back River Flooding and Shoaling Citizens Committee- Report to City Council- August 2007 Findings/Recommendations: The Back River Flooding and Shoaling Committee 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 1990’s this Hampton landmark has provided storm protection to the Back River (storm surge, wave action, shoaling, etc) The Factory Point peninsula is the city of Hampton’s 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 surge and wave action with sustained winds from nor’easters. 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. Hampton’s 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.
9) Dredging will alleviate a serious safety problem and aid navigation in the channels of Back River. Dredging may provide suitable material needed 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 already underway by the city of Hampton’s 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 Boulevard would 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.
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 on inside/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 Factory Point. 4) Strengthen flood plain management efforts of the city ( FEMA flood plain map update, development in adjacent shoreline areas, flood insurance awareness, mitigation grants for raising houses, erosion control, etc) 5) Develop and implement a shoreline management/protection plan along Hampton’s Chesapeake Bay shoreline from Factory Point to Fort Monroe. This should include other shoreline areas in Back River ( using breakwaters and/or other measures as appropriate) and other measures as appropriate ( 1980 Dune Act).
6) Increase maintenance of the city’s 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.
Factory Point Peninsula
After
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
IV. Establishing Subcommittees
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
V. Preparing for the Public Listening Session
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010 VI. Overview of the Web site/demo
ampton Engages Home and About Page
Hampton Engages Email Sign Up Box
Hampton Engages Learn and Historical Studies Page
Hampton Engages
Participate and Discussion Forum Page
Hampton Engages Forum Registration Page
Hampton Engages
Resources Documentation Page
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
VII. Review Syllabus of future meetings
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meetings Outline (as of 12/02/10) Session 1- Organizational Meeting of Steering Committee • • • • • • •
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
Session 2-Previous Studies Overview/Listening Session Prep * Community Listening Session * Session 3- Educational Topics- Part 1 “Mother Nature at Work” Rising Sea Level/Changing Weather Patterns • • •
A) Storm Water Management
• •
Watersheds/Modeling- John Paine, URS “Storm Water Run off -101”- John/ Fred Hampton’s Storm System Maintenance- PW staff(?)
B) Water Quality Regs-“the Real Approaching Storm” • • •
(Dec 14th) (Jan 11th)
(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)
Session 4- Educational Topics- Part 2
•
(Nov 30th)
EPA Clean Water Act- Karl Mertig, KHA Ches Bay Model(?)- John Other?
(Feb 8th)
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan 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(?)-speaker •Development Regulations- Gayle Session 5- Educational Topics- Part 3
(Feb 15th)
D) Waterways Management-
•Dredging Issues- Ken •Who’s to blame for all of the siltation? •Other E) Shoreline Protection
•Shoreline Management Plan for Chesapeake Bay- Rebecca •Rivers/Creeks Shoreline Protection- Rebecca •Wetlands Protection - VIMS F) Federal/State/ Regional Agencies Perspectives
•“Permitting 101”- COE rep/Ken •Federal/State Funding Programs - speaker? •HRPDC – John Carlock Detailed Discussion Sessions
( Feb- Mar)
Steering Committee Discussions on Draft Recommendations
(April)
*Community Checkpoint Meeting * Committee Meeting(s) to Revise Report to Council *Committee Presentation to Council *
( May) ( May) ( June)
Hampton Comprehensive Waterway Management Plan Steering Committee Meeting December 14th, 2010
VIII. Public Comments/general questions
