29 MARCH 2018 HAZARD MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES: NYC HAZARD MITIGATION TOOLS FROM PLANNING TO IMPLEMENTATION

Transcription

1 29 MARCH 2018 HAZARD MITIGATION BEST PRACTICES: NYC HAZARD MITIGATION TOOLS FROM PLANNING TO IMPLEMENTATION 1

2 AGENDA Hazard Mitigation Planning Planning to Implementation Interim Flood Protection Measures Program Interim to Permanent Mitigation: Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System March 29,

3 AGENDA HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING Hazard Mitigation Plan Overview Risk Assessment Mitigation Strategy New Approach for 2019 Web-based plan Risk Landscape 3

4 NYC HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN OVERVIEW Local and State jurisdictions must have a FEMA-approved mitigation plan to receive FEMA Hazard Mitigation funds. Eligible for FEMA Funds approximately $250M+ million HMGP is being pursued by NYC. March 29,

5 WHO WAS INVOLVED Over 200 people are involved in the development of the 2014 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) 40 agencies: 100 people 20 Private Non- Profit: 40 people 20 Private Sector: 40 people 15 Academic: 30 people 5 people March 29,

6 2014 HMP CHALLENGES Compliance Issues Since NYC s resiliency landscape is complex with different actors and moving pieces, certain FEMA and NYS DHSES requirements were challenging to meet. This led to a 500 page plan that was confusing and difficult to navigate. March 29,

7 2014 HMP CHALLENGES Timing Issues Hurricane Sandy and the subsequent resiliency efforts compressed the timeline and resources available to develop the plan. This led to a duplication of efforts and less time to enhance the plan s content. March 29,

8 RISK LANDSCAPE BACKGROUND Background Since the HMP has some great content on risk assessment and mitigation, we created the Risk Landscape to streamline information in a user friendly format. The document conveys the most crucial and salient concepts to engage New Yorkers about hazard mitigation. March 29,

9 RISK ASSESSMENT + MITIGATION STRATEGY WHAT IS THE HAZARD? WHAT IS THE RISK? Severity Probability Location Social Built Natural Significant Occurrences Future HOW DO WE MANAGE THE RISK? Best Practices Mitigation Summary Case Studies March 29,

10 10

11 HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN TOOLS Tools we have created to enhance the risk assessment and mitigation strategy sections of the HMP. Hazard Mitigation Actions Both Recovery and Resiliency Projects March 29,

12 GOALS OF THE HH&C TOOL Central resource to inform risk assessments Repository of historic hourly weather station data Visualizes and aggregates hazard impacts to assist with grant development and justification, capital planning Ability to enhance agency emergency planning, response, and community outreach by localizing risk Documented historical losses to better inform benefit-cost analysis Provides visuals and information to support scenario planning for trainings, exercises, and after action reviews March 29,

13 DATA SUMMARY Consequence Data Usage & Limitations Leveraged best available data Aggregated to neighborhood level and higher; mapped when feasible Avoiding uneducated correlations between hazards and consequences Hazard Data Aggregated historic hourly weather data Currently 97 weather stations integrated into Tool Data includes: temperature, wind speed, wind gust, humidity, heat index, precipitation, and wind direction March 29,

14 USE CASES Scenario Planning Develop graphics and scenarios to support trainings, exercises, and other efforts tied to emergency events Grant/Funding Informs BCA Provides content, context, graphics, and statistics to support: Grant writing, justification, and mitigation investment Archive Collects media, studies, after action reports, damage assessments, and data tied to specific weather events Emergency Planning Re-evaluate and validate plan triggers Assess operational strategies across emergency plans Data Visualization and Integration Enhanced visualization and mapping of agency-provided data within the tool Unparalleled access to localized weather data and analysis March 29,

15 DEMO HH&C TOOL Hazard History & Consequence Tool 15

16 2017 MITIGATION STRATEGY SUMMARY Category Existing Potential Complete Current Mitigation Actions Summary CBRN Coastal Erosion Potential: Total Projects: Existing Complete Potential Existing Coastal Storms Cyber Threats Disease Outbreaks Drought Earthquakes Extreme Temperatures Flooding Infrastructure Failures Severe Weather Winter storms Multi-Hazard Total 394 March ,

17 NYC RECOVERY, RESILIENCY, AND MITIGATION PROJECTS March 29,

18 NEW APPROACH 2019 HMP Web-based Plan that goes beyond meeting State and FEMA Requirements Web-based Plan Risk Landscape 2.0 March 29,

19 2019: WEB-BASED PLAN 19

20 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY March 29,

21 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY March 29,

22 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY March 29,

23 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY FLOODING HAZARD RISK PROFILE WHAT IS THE HAZARD? WHAT IS THE RISK? HOW DO WE MANAGE THE RISK? March 29,

24 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY March 29,

25 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY HAZARD, HISTORY AND CONSEQUENCE March 29,

26 ABOUT PLANNING HAZARD SPECIFIC ALL HAZARDS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY RESILIENCE TOOLKIT Community Hazard Mitigation Case Study Development of a Community Hazard Mitigation Toolkit Community outreach for toolkit Online survey March 29,

27 FROM PLANNING TO IMPLEMENTATION INTERIM FLOOD PROTECTION 27

28 IFPM Scope Program Goal: Reduction of low-level, high recurrence coastal flood risks while the City continues to advance longer-term coastal protection needs NYCEM, in coordination with ORR, launched the Interim Flood Protection Measures (IFPM) Program in As of 12/4/17, this initiative has resulted in 43 sites that will have deployable flood protection by a City emergency contractor during a potential coastal flooding event. March 29,

29 Flooding Addressed by IFPM Interim flood protection measures are intended to: Mitigate surge flood risk Interim flood protection measures are not intended to: Mitigate rainfall flooding Mitigate flood risks during severe events like Hurricane Sandy Fully eliminate flood risks March 29,

30 How Sites Were Selected Citywide analysis identified at-risk neighborhoods and city assets Selected sites met the following criteria: Provide protection to a critical service, facility or vulnerable population Feasible based on existing stormwater drainage system Minimize visual and access (e.g. traffic, pedestrian) impacts Coastal flooding risk defined by probability of occurrence March 29,

31 IFPM Process Review Identify the sites Design the interim measures Procure the interim measures Obtain permits Deploy the interim measures 31

32 Identify the Sites NYCEM-Managed: 11 1 neighborhoods 10 facilities DEP-Managed: 32 March 29,

33 How Sites Were Designed Sites designed by coastal engineers in coordination with City agencies 1. City-contracted coastal engineers provide conceptual, draft, and final engineered design drawings 2. Engineers use high-recurrence flood models to identify potential alignments 3. Multiple agencies provided input to ensure IFPM will not impact traffic, drainage, or other City services, including: 1. NYC Department of Environmental Protection drainage impacts 2. NYC Department of Transportation traffic and parking impacts 3. Fire Department of New York emergency access and response 4. NY Police Department - emergency access and response 5. Site owner 4. Sites obtain all applicable permits and approvals March 29,

34 Pre-Deployed vs Just-in-Time Pre-deployed measures can be installed at any time prior to coastal storm season with no impacts to vehicular, pedestrian or commercial access. IFPM Pre-deployed measures: HESCO Barriers Just-in-Time (JIT) measures are deployed hours before the onset of storm force winds (winds in excess of 39 mph) and may impact pedestrian, vehicular or commercial access. IFPM JIT measures: Tiger Dams March 29,

35 Pre-Deployed Hesco Barriers Sand-filled geotextile and wire mesh containers remain in place up to 5 years March 29,

36 Just-In-time Tiger Dams Water-filled tubes deployed in lead up to coastal storms 36

37 Case Study: IFPM Red Hook Neighborhood Identify the site Procure the interim measure Obtain Permits Design the interim measure Issues with neighborhood sites: Sewer analysis ADA accessibility Day to day operations Community Engagement Evacuation timeline Coordinating with businesses Differs from permanent work March 29,

38 Case Study: IFPM Red Hook Site Assessment - Vulnerability March 29,

39 Case Study: IFPM Red Hook Design Overview -----Denotes JIT Tiger Dam Placement Denotes Pre-deployed HESCO barriers March 29,

40 Case Study: IFPM Red Hook Installation August 2017 March 29,

41 Case Study: IFPM Red Hook Completed Pre-deployed Installation Note: Barriers were painted to protect against UV damage and increase longevity March 29,

42 Case Study: IFPM Red Hook Beautification Project Designs were solicited and 11 were chosen by a panel of local stakeholders for installation. Installation will be completed in April The artist whose work is shown below is a 9 year old Red Hook Resident. March 29,

43 Conover Street/Reed Street Existing 43

44 Conover Street/Reed Street Pre-Storm Conditions 44

45 Beard Street Existing 45

46 Beard Street Blue Sky Conditions 46

47 Beard Street Pre-Storm Conditions 47

48 INTERIM TO PERMANENT MITIGATION RED HOOK INTEGRATED FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM 48

49 Red Hook Neighborhood Profile Historic waterfront community in Brooklyn, NY with a long history of shipping and industry. Home to the City s second largest public housing project. Experiencing increasing pressures of gentrification. The neighborhood is geographically separated from the rest of Brooklyn. It has little access to public transportation and limited local services and amenities. The community suffered a devastating crime wave and disinvestment in 1960s early 2000s after much of the port jobs left the City. 49

50 Red Hook Hurricane Sandy caused extensive damage in the neighborhood. The entire neighborhood is very lowlying and a large potion of the land is former marsh. Sandy caused up to five feet of flooding. The Red Hook Houses lost power, heat, and water for weeks. Local schools were flooded and closed. Local businesses closed for weeks and months. A large volunteer recovery effort formed, and local residents were very active in emergency recovery and long term resiliency planning. 50

51 Red Hook Red Hook is extremely vulnerable to flooding. 51

52 Red Hook Red Hook is extremely vulnerable to flooding. This map shows the inundation and flood depth that occurred during Hurricane Sandy within the Red Hook study area Major inland portions of Red Hook had between 2-4 feet of water during Hurricane Sandy Hurricane Sandy flooding was similar to a 1% Annual Chance Storm Event (also referred to as a 100-Year Storm) which has 1 % chance of occurring in a given year 52

53 Red Hook Red Hook is extremely vulnerable to flooding. The Red Hook Study Area consists of 597 acres, 1,448 buildings, and a population of 13,402 that are potentially vulnerable to flooding. Nearly the entire peninsula is at risk to coastal flooding. Storm Event Area Flooded % of Total Acres Study Area Affected Buildings No. of % of Buildings Total Affected Population % of Population Total Hurricane Sandy % % 10,560 85% 10 year 92 15% % 820 7% 10 year +2.5' SLR % % 7,802 63% 50 year % % 9,118 74% 50 year +2.5' SLR % 1,067 74% 10,780 87% 100 year % 1,033 71% 10,650 86% 100 year +2.5' SLR % 1,236 85% 11,080 89% 53

54 Red Hook Characteristics and Vulnerabilities 54

55 Red Hook Side Note - NYCHA FEMA Recovery and Resiliency Project The Federal Emergency Management Agency allocated over $438 million to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) Red Hook Houses for Hurricane Sandy. Covers 31 of 32 NYCHA buildings and includes a variety of recovery and resiliency work. Seventy percent of Red Hook residents live in the Red Hook Houses. 55

56 PROJECT OVERVIEW 56

57 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Project Funding $4 million in FEMA Advanced Assistance Funding For the Feasibility Study $50 million in FEMA Funding from New York State $50 million in New York City Capital Funding $104 million for Study, Design and Construction 57

58 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System NYC has submitted the feasibility study for FEMA review. FEMA HMGP AA Process Feasibility Study To advance to design, the City must first identify a preferred feasible/implementable project and submit that preferred project to FEMA for review and approval. Design If that preferred project is approved by FEMA, FEMA releases funding to begin the design phase. Construction If the design is approved by FEMA, FEMA releases funding for construction. 58

59 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Feasibility Study Objectives and Goals Feasibility Study Objectives: A broader understanding of what comprehensive resiliency in Red Hook means. Identify a $100m project for coastal flood risk reduction that is moved into design, environmental review, permitting, and construction. Identify other feasible options for future flood risk reduction in Red Hook. City Goals for Coastal Flood Risk Reduction in Red Hook: Reduce Red Hook s coastal flood risk with minimal impact on the neighborhood when there isn t a storm. Build a flood protection system that is tailored to Red Hook and its unique waterfront. Incorporate community and stakeholder priorities and identify additional project goals. Identify a project for the FEMA HMGP application. 59

60 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Community Outreach and Engagement Community Goals Integration with the community and streets to allow for pedestrian and vehicle traffic flow. Don t just build a wall. Maintain and improve maritime capacity and waterfront access. Consider drainage issues, include upgrades to sewer system. Provide jobs and job training for local residents. The system should actually work. There is less concern with heights and locations. Enhance bike-friendly environment, including the Brooklyn Greenway. Coordinate and keep informed of other major projects in the neighborhood. Keep the community engaged and informed. Continue to focus on storm preparedness. 60

61 PROJECT ANALYSIS 61

62 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Feasibility Considerations FEMA-approved IFPS: Must have independent utility cannot depend on other separate projects or features to fully function Cannot have a negative impact on existing conditions or worsen flooding in other nearby locations The quantified benefits must be greater than the quantified costs Must be permanent - no temporary measures such as sandbags 62

63 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Analysis Connecting the high points and segmenting the project. Segmenting or phasing the project was first analyzed to provide an easier implementation path. Achieving independent utility is extremely challenging or impossible, given the topography and floodplain in Red Hook The natural high points are indicated by the white circles and connected by the white dotted lines 63

64 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Analysis The project team analyzed a variety of alignments. Given the inability to segment the project, the following three potential alignment scenarios were developed: The Outermost Alignment: Generally follows waterfront edge and includes greatest amount of area within IFPS. Potentially most expensive scenario. Highest DFE. Impacts to the working waterfront and to views. The In-Between Alignment: Moderate flood risk reduction benefits within the study area. Takes advantage of the natural topographic high points reducing the overall length of the system. The Innermost Alignment: Least area of protection and length. Potentially lowest cost scenario. NOTE - Portions of these alignments can be mixed and matched. 64

65 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Analysis The project team analyzed a variety of DFEs. The coastal flood risk/vulnerability for various storm conditions were used as a starting guide to develop four Design Flood Elevation (DFE) scenarios. Beard and Richards DFE A: equivalent to the 10% annual chance flood (10-year storm) + 1 Sea Level Rise DFE B: equivalent to the 10% annual chance flood (10-year storm) Sea Level Rise + 6 of Freeboard Clinton Wharf DFE C: equivalent to the 2% annual chance flood (50-year storm) Sea Level Rise + 6 of Freeboard. DFE D: equivalent to the 1% annual chance flood (100-year storm) Sea Level Rise + 1 of Freeboard. 65

66 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Analysis Each DFE presents significant challenges and did not meet project goals and objectives. To achieve independent utility the project would have to essentially encircle the entire peninsula of Red Hook. Given the length of the alignments needed to tie into high ground at the DFEs analyzed, these IFPS options would have significant negative impacts to existing drainage patterns and require major drainage modifications such as new pumps. The system can potentially create a bath tub within the barrier if walls were over-topped or during a heavy rain storm if the pumps failed or volume of water exceeded the capacity of the pumps. The system effectively created a barrier to the waterfront and did not provide additional community design benefits. The number of deployables also posed a serious challenge to the integrity of the system. 66

67 PROPOSED PROJECT 67

68 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Each DFE presents significant challenges and did not meet project goals and objectives. Given the complications with a large-scale deployable system integrated flood protection system, the project decided to lower the level of protection to the point where deployables were not necessary. This level is 8 feet NAVD88, equivalent to the 10-Year Coastal Storm Surge + 1 feet of sea level rise. This approach reduced the length of the project to the two lowest points in Red Hook Atlantic Basin and a portion of Beard Street. Atlantic Basin Beard Street 68

69 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Proposed Project Areas Proposed project will reduce flood risks from a 10 year storm + 1 SLR. Interventions at Atlantic Basin and Beard Street Completely passive solution NYCHA Allows for future adaptability at Beard Street Minimal negative impacts 69

70 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Beard Street Buried floodwall with raised roadway and sidewalks Passive solution Future adaptability Minimal impacts to views and circulation 70

71 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Atlantic Basin Replace existing bulkhead New landscaped walkway No deployables Minimal impacts to views and circulation Requires re-grading 71

72 Red Hook Integrated Flood Protection System Proposed Project Advantages Achieve independent utility Passive and permanent solution No significant or negative impacts to drainage with some drainage modifications Stronger foundation allows for future adaptation at Beard St Does not inhibit other long-term planning considerations Maintain access to the waterfront Planned improved design at two waterfront locations. 72

73 QUESTIONS? Heather Roiter Director of Hazard Mitigation Melissa Umberger Deputy Director of Hazard Mitigation Jessica Colon Senior Policy Advisor, Planning Mayor s Office of Recovery and Resiliency jicolon@cityhall.nyc.gov 73