HomeMy WebLinkAboutI. B. COASTAL STORM RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY UPDATE 10.15.2024Keith Lockwood
Chief, Water Resources Division
Kristin Mazur
Program Manager
Norfolk District
Date: 15 October 2024
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH
COASTAL STORM RISK
MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY
STUDY
Photos from Virginia Beach Sea Level Wise Adaption Strategy Report
2
STUDY OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW
• Reduce the direct and indirect risks to human life, health and
safety caused by coastal storms in the City of Virginia Beach
for the period of analysis.
•Reduce structure damage and other national
economic development impacts caused by coastal storm
events in the City of Virginia Beach for the period of analysis.
•Develop a Recommended Plan for a large, complex study
area spread over two watersheds (Chesapeake Bay and
Albemarle-Pamlico) while aligning with Norfolk CSRM and
multiple shoreline-facing Naval Facilities.
•Study Duration – 5 Years 11 Months
•Study Cost - $13.5 Million*
•*Costs for City of Virginia Beach = $6.65M, Federal Costs = $6.85M
The study was authorized by Section 1201 of the
America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, dated January
3, 2018. The study is authorized to identify long-term
solutions to minimize risk attributable to coastal storms
through the potential project's 50-year authorization.
3
3
USACE CIVIL
WORKS
PROCESS
17 Steps to a
Civil Wor ks
Project
CW Step 1:
Problem Identification
CW Step 2:
Congressional Study
Resolution / Authority
CW Step 3: Execute
FCSA and Feasibility
Funds
CW Step 4:
Conduct Feasibility
Study
CW Step 5: Complete
Final Report for
Coordination &
Submission
CW Step 6: Division Engineer’s Transmittal
CW Step 7: Washington
Level Policy Review on
Final Report
CW Step 8: Chief of
Engineer’s Report
(Chief’s Report)
CW Step 9:
Administration Review
- Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Civil
Works [ASA(CW)]
-Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)
CW Step 10: Project
Authorization
(WRDA Bill or other
legislation)
CW Step 11 District
Executes Design
Agreement
CW Step 12: District
conducts Preconstruction
Engineering and Design
activities
CW Step 13: District
drafts Project
Partnership Agreement
(PPA)
CW Step 14: Congress
appropriates
Construction Funds
CW Step 15: Execute
PPA
CW Step 16: Project is
Constructed
CW Step 17:
Operation,
Maintenance,Repair,
Replacement,and
Rehabilitation
(OMRR&R)
- Feasibility
- PED
- Construction
- Work by others
3
WE
ARE
HERE
Study
Ends
here
44
SMART Feasibility Study Process
TSP Milestone
Vertical Team
concurrence on
tentatively
selected plan
8 JUL 2025
Senior
Leader
Briefing
Release for
State &
Agency
Review
05 NOV 2027
Agency
Decision
Milestone
Agency
endorsement of
recommended
plan
05 JUL 2027
Chief’s Report
Chief’s Report
Signed
30 MAY 2028
Alternatives
Milestone
Vertical Team
concurrence
on array of
alternatives
9 NOV 2022
•Identify study
objectives
•Define problems &
opportunities
•NEPA scoping
•Inventory & initial
forecast of future
conditions
•Formulate
alternative plans
•Evaluate
alternatives and
identify reasonable
initial array of plans
•Develop PMP and
Review Plan
2
1
3
4 5
SCOPING ALTERNATIVE
FORMULATION
& ANALYSIS
FEASIBILITY-
LEVEL
ANALYSIS
CHIEF’S REPORT
Release draft report for
CONCURRENT REVIEW
8 SEPT 2025
DE transmits final report
package
10 JAN 2028
5
Modeling Efforts
•Beach-fx will be used to evaluate structure damage caused by coastal
storm inundation, waves, and erosion/land loss in beachfront areas
•G2CRM will be used to evaluate structure damage caused by coastal
storm surge flooding in tidally influenced areas that are not beachfront
•U.S. Army Corps of Engineers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS)
developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center.
•HEC-RAS is used to develop the water surface profiles for the 50-
year period of analysis
•Considers the USACE High Sea Level Curve
Considerations
•Analyzing approximately 20 miles of non-federal beachfront
•Alignment with Norfolk CSRM and Naval Facilities
throughout the study area
•Cannot be completed within the 3x3x3 SMART study
schedule or budget requirements
•Extensive time for model setup
•Extensive time for model runs and analysis
MODELING EFFORTS: ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC
7
POTENTIAL MEASURES
Structural MeasuresNonstructural Measures Nature-Based Solutions
7
8
STRUCTURAL MEASURES OVERVIEW
•Potential engineered defenses were presented in the City of Virginia Beach’s
Sea Level Wise Adaptation Strategy (March 2020) for each of the watersheds.
This included storm surge barrier concepts for Lynnhaven Inlet, Rudee Inlet, and
the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River.
•These preliminary alternative alignments require further refinement and analysis
over the next several months. Some alternative alignments are likely to be
screened out prior to the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) milestone.
•The economic modeling is not complete for the ‘With Project Condition’
•We are looking for your feedback!
8
9
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
•Alternative 1 – similar to proposed
engineered defenses in the Sea Level
Wise Strategy
•Includes dune/beach feature at Joint
Expeditionary Base (JEB) Fort Story
Southside of Lesner Bridge facing east
9
10
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
•Alternative 2 includes a series of
floodwalls, and several gates,
including a gate proposed at the
‘Narrows’ where Broad Bay
converges with Linkhorn Bay
10
11
LYNNHAVEN RIVER
•Similar to Alternative 1 but does not
include a proposed dune/beach
feature at JEB-Fort Story
11
12
LITTLE CREEK
•Coordination efforts underway with
the Navy
•Norfolk CSRM Project currently
includes a proposed storm surge
barrier at Pretty Lake (future phase
of the project)
•Alternative 1 includes a surge barrier
comprised of gate across Little Creek
Inlet and associated floodwall
12
Little Creek Alt 1
13
LITTLE CREEK
•Alternative 2 includes the
beach/dune feature only and does
not include a storm surge barrier at
Little Creek Inlet
13
Little Creek Alt 2
14
LITTLE CREEK
•Alternative 3 includes a proposed
floodwall outside of the boundaries of
JEB-Little Creek
14
Little Creek Alt 3
15
OCEANFRONT
•Alternative 1 – Dune/beach features
•Alternative 2 – excludes federal
property (JEB-Fort Story and NAS
Oceana Dam Neck Annex)
15
16
RUDEE INLET
•Rudee Inlet Alternative 1 - includes a surge barrier
at Rudee Inlet
•Proposed beach/dune feature terminates at
southern limit of Croatan beach
Rudee Inlet facing east
Rudee Inlet facing west
16
17
RUDEE INLET
•Structural alternative includes a
floodwall that extends from the
southern terminus of Croatan beach
and along the edge of Virginia Army
National Guard’s State Military
Reservation (SMR)
17
18
BACK BAY
•Alternative 1 – similar alignment
as presented in the Sea Level
Wise Adaptation Strategy (2020)
18
19
BACK BAY
•Alternative 2 – includes
elevated roadways and two
gate crossings.
•No structural measures
proposed in Sandbridge
community
19
20
BACK BAY
•Alternative 2 – includes
elevated roadways and two
gate crossings.
•No structural measures
proposed in Sandbridge
community
19
21
BACK BAY / SOUTHERN RIVERS
•Alternative 1 – same
alignment as shown in the
Sea Level Wise Adaptation
Strategy (2020)
•Alternative 2 – alignment
extends to the intersection of
Muddy Creek Rd and Horn
Point Rd
19
22
WEST NECK CREEK
•Alignment includes elevated roadway
and gate adjacent to West Neck
Creek bridge
West Neck Creek Bridge facing west View north from bridge
20
23
ELIZABETH RIVER
•Three alternative alignments
identified for further evaluation
•Alternative 1 – same alignment as
presented in the Sea Level Wise
Adaptation Strategy (2020)
•Alternative 2 – alignment proposed
adjacent to S. Military Hwy
•Alternative 3 - alignment proposed
adjacent to I-64
21
24
•An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)and Record of Decision (ROD)are anticipated based
on significant environmental impacts associated with structural measures and the presence of
sensitive environmental resources in the study area.
•Additional time and funding for habitat surveys and modeling efforts (i.e., water quality,
hydrodynamic, and sediment transport) will inform the impact analysis and evaluation, including
the potential system-level impacts associated with structural measures. ($600K)
•This information would reduce uncertainty associated with potential impacts and is necessary to
complete consultation requirements pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
•Total study duration with additional time and funds is 70 months (34 additional months). The
Notice of Intent will be published in the Federal Register prior to TSP and will formally initiate the
NEPA process. Based on the study milestone schedule identified in Section 10a, the two-year
limit for an EIS will be exceeded (40 CFR §1501.10). Therefore, the PDT will coordinate with the
vertical team on documentation to request a time limit extension for NEPA Compliance.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND
COMPLIANCE
25NEXT STEPS
•Complete Modeling Efforts
•Public Outreach, Same as Sea Level Wise
•Engineering Investigations and Refinement
•I-STORM Workshop
•Working group of experts in surge barrier design
•Nature-Based Solutions working group session
•Nov/Dec timeframe
•Tentatively Selected Plan
25
26
-The final Feasibility Report will recommend a plan for authorization and
construction and includes results of analysis and modeling and an initial design
(~30%) and Class III cost estimate
-The Chief’s Report is what is called the “authorizing document” that allows for
congress to authorize the recommended project and appropriate federal funds for
implementation
-An example of a completed CSRM feasibility study is the City of Norfolk CSRM
Feasibility Study which recommended a project that is currently in the
preconstruction engineering and design phase and has been allocated $399.3
million via the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
FINAL PRODUCTS AND STUDY OUTCOME
27
USACE Points of Contact:
•Michelle Hamor, Chief of Planning and Policy, michelle.l.hamor@usace.army.mil
•Chrissie Figueroa, Senior Planner, christyn.d.wiederhold@usace.army.mil
•Kristin Mazur, Coastal Storm Risk Management Program Manager,
kristin.m.mazur@usace.mil
•Mark Haviland, Chief Public Affairs Office, mark.w.haviland@usace.army.mil
City Points of Contact:
•CJ Bodnar, Technical Services Program Manager, CBodnar@vbgov.com
•Amanda Madson, Engineer III, AMadson@vbgov.com
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
28
BACK-UP SLIDES
29
Milestone VTAM Date
Signing of Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (CW130)21-Jul-2022 (A)
Alternatives Milestone (CW261)9-Nov-2022(A)
Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone (CW262)8-Jul-2025 (S)*
Draft Report Submittal to HQ (CW150)8-Sep-2025 (S)
Public Release of Draft (CW250)8-Sep-2025 (S)
Agency Decision Milestone (CW263)7-May-2027 (S)
Submit Final Report Package to Vertical Team (CW160)05-Nov-2027 (S)
Signed Chief’s Report (CW270)30-May-2028 (S)
*$14,000 WIK provided to date, however, more WIK may be applied.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND FUNDING STREAM
FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL SCHEDULE OF COSTS JUNE 2024
YEAR TOTAL
N-FED WORK
IN KIND*N-FED CASH FED IEPR (FED)
FY22 $200,000 $0 $0 $200,000
FY23 $1,700,000 $0 $950,000 $750,000
FY24 $2,400,000 $0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
FY25 $3,000,000 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
FY26 $2,800,000 $0 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $200,000
FY 27 $2,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
FY 28 $1,400,000 $14,000 $686,000 $700,000
TOTAL $13,500,000 $14,000 $6,636,000 $6,650,000 $200,000
Due to the size and complexity of the
Va Beach study area, the team is
collecting geotechnical and survey
data on the refined alternatives. This
reduces the time and cost of
collecting data. Having data collection
and engineering design concurrent
with the draft report completion and
public reviews allows for more time to
get to a class III cost estimate. This is
the most streamline way to complete
the study for WRDA 2028.
30
FINAL COST BREAKDOWN – CLASS III COST
Engineering costs for
the Class III cost
estimate is broken
down on the next slides
31ENGINEERING BREAKDOWN
Class III Cost Estimate Requirement:
Greater Maturity of design will allow
us to refine the risk associated with
specific features and risk events,
resulting in more realistic variance
ranges (low/likely/high) used in the
cost and schedule risk model.
32HYDRODYNAMIC AND WATER QUALITY MODELING
OVERVIEW
•Purpose: to characterize potential hydrodynamic and water quality impacts resulting from storm surge barrier systems
•Modeling results will be used to understand the potential effects of these systems on circulation and water quality and
determine if these impacts would be significant
•Results will be further extrapolated to understand the potential direct and indirect impacts to environmental resources and
localized ecosystems that will be discussed in the feasibility report as well as to inform potential mitigation actions.
•Modeling efforts underway by U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory
(CHL) and expected to take up to 17 months
22
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality
Modeling
Coastal Storm Surge and Wave Hazards:
CSTORM and CHS
Characterize Existing Natural Variability in water quality (data
collection)Mesh Development for Single With-project Design
Existing Conditions Model Development Revalidate/Calibrate ADCIRC Model
Future without Project Determine Storm Suite
Future with Project Conditions Model CSTORM Screening Model and Analysis
Future Conditions Analysis CSTORM Full Modeling and Analysis
We are here