Department of Geological Sciences, Faculty of Sciences Masaryk University/Brno & Czech Geological Society
September 12-14, 2011
Short Course on Geological Hazards
Day 3 (wed am), Lecture 5:
(Topic 5 of Original Announcement)
Klaus H. Jacob
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, NY
jacob@ldeo.columbia.edu
Overview of Topics
• NYC's Expected Climate Change (21st Century)
Temperature Precipitation
Storms (Hurricanes, Nor'easter's, Winterstorms, Windstorms) Sea Level Rise (SLR) & Coastal Storm Surge Inundations
• NYC's Infrastructure Exposed to the CC Hazards, and its Vulnerabilities.
• Risk (Expected Future $-Losses) due to CC
Options & Costs to Reduce NYC's CC Risks
T/J3 Global Con
Coastal urban agglomerations with populations more than 8 million in 2010
5Ww York* 17.2
Los Angeles •>3r9j|j
Seoul • 9.9
Istanbul •118 Tianjin • 10.0 | ^,^.264
Karachi-16.6184 VVÄV™ ■       J     Shanghai «13.7
■ Calcutta*l5.6 £Manila* 13.9 Lagos-20.2    Mumoai.23.6 \T  {- ^
Madras • 8.2   Bangkok M
Rio de Janeiro • 11.5
Buenos
Aires •
_ f
13.7
X
Source: UN data
Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast
1900        1950        2000        2050        21 Oi
No. ofdays>100°F (38°C)
80
ll
c o
C
8
H
c
40-
0
a 20
1 V
o
NEW YORK Cll	
n Lower Emissions ■ Higher Emissions	
	n
M I—	
1961-1990 2010-2039 2040-2069 2070-2C99
No. of days >90°F (32°C)
90
LL
C
o
* 60->
0
NEW YORK CITY
□ Lower Emissions
« 40 - ■ Higher Emissions
>
3
n
10e--1G^D 201O-2C33 2D7C-20G9
CO
o
S ö)
J2 <5
c > o <
"S?
!| E?
a- 0 O >
»- W
CD — ■- O
NO. OF DAYS WITH RAIN
1.5 -
□ Lower Emissions ■ Higher Emissions
1 —I
0.5 --
o
br >S cm
2010-2039 2040-2069 2070-2099
Many of these heavy rains occur during Nor'easters or Hurricanes
WTC - Site:
Questions:
Can the West-Tub Flood?
Can the East Tub Flood?
For which Storm Surge Elevations?
How will Flooding affect PATH System?
• Hudson Tunnels
• Stations / Tracks / Control Systems
• New Transportation Hub?
• For how Long ?
Will Flooding of NYCT Subway System(s) Affect / Connect with PATH & WTC facilities?
If Answers to Above are YES:
What Sealing-Off Options Exist ?
What Pumping Facilities are Planned ? Where ? Capacity? Reliability ?
Is a Levee System || to West Street Feasible? Up to what Height? How long would it be effective, given SLR.
GIS-based Risk Assessment Tool 'HAZUS-MH' (FEMA's "Hazards in the United States - Multi Hazards Version": Earthquakes, Wind, Flood).	
Risk = Sum ( $ / year or /event      over Region	rkrzsiril x .Asshjs x yuisiar^bWiy) probability per time        $ value                    0 < V < 1
Risk	Expected Losses for either a scenario event ($) or in terms of probabilistic annual losses ($/year)
• Hazards	Probability per unit time of exceeding a certain hazard, e.g. wind speed or flood height (P=1 for scenario event)
	Replacement Value in Dollars for Buildings or Infrastructure, (or $ / live!)
j VijJ/jarsj/jJJJxy	Dimensionless Value between 0 and 1. It is the Damaged Fraction of Replacement Value of a Given Asset, for the Specified Hazard Level the Asset is exposed to.
HAZUS-MH also has a Built-in Economic Model for Damage-Related, Indirect Economic Losses; e.g. for Losses related to building damage and closure; but Its default version is weak In assessing vulnerabilities of infrastructure systems. Requires user input for infrastructure assets and their vulnerabilities.	
SEMO 2006 HAZUS HURRICANE MODELING
WORST CASE SCENARIO - TRACK 1 CATEGORY 3 (125 MPH)
HAZUS ESTIMATED PEAK GUST (MPH)
| 68-78
| 79-86
87-96
97-105
106 - 112
113- 121
122 - 130 ] 131 - 137 | 138 - 143 I 144 - 148
NOAA SLOSH MODEL: Surge Heights Translated into Inundated Areas by Dan O'Brien, NYSEMO
Cost
> a o
73 CD
a
-h
o 3
if* o DG
O 3
if* Ol
o DG
O 3
if*
O O
DD
O 3
Ol
o DD
O 3
o
DD
if*
M O
o DD
O 3
M Ol O
DD
O 3
CO
o o
DD
O 3
CO Ol
o DD
O 3
if*
O
o DD
O 3
CD 2
-<
m
Track 1- Slow Track 9- Slow Track 5- Slow Track 1- Fast Track 2- Slow Track 6- Slow Track 9- Fast Track 10- Slow s      Track 5- Fast O      Track 2- Fast Track 7- Slow Trackl 1- Slow Track 3- Slow Track 6- Fast Track 10- Fast Track 1- Moderate Track 12- Slow Track 8- Slow Track 11- Fast Track 7- Fast Track 9- Moderate Track 3- Fast Track 5- Moderate Track 2- Moderate Track 4- Slow Track 6- Moderate Track 10- Moderate </>        Track 8- Fast 2 Track 1- Slow
* Track 12-Fast 5 Track 7- Moderate 3. Track 9- Slow ° Track 5- Slow
Track 11- Moderate Track 4- Fast Track 3- Moderate Track 2- Slow Track 6- Slow Track 10- Slow Track 8- Moderate Track 9- Fast Track 7- Slow Track 11- Slow Track4- Moderate Track 3- Slow Track 12- Moderate Track 1- Fast Track 5- Fast Track 10- Fast Track 8- Slow Track 12- Slow Track 6- Fast Track 2- Fast Track 4- Slow Track 11- Fast Track 7- Fast Track 3- Fast Track 8- Fast Track 12- Fast Track 4- Fast
Ol
7) =
o -■
c o
CD ^
Q- 5
O ^
E 5"
° o
X O
c a
o o o
Is
0) c -I
-! O
f 5
0
a
ft) 3
0 —
> N
E C/)
Sea Level Rise Makes a Bad Situation Worse !
The Battery, NYC
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year
Reduction in Return Period of the 100-Year Flood
due tO Sea Level Rise Only (ConstantStorm Frequency).
Future Flood Return Periods (in Years) for a Land Elevation that in the 1960s was reached by a 100-Year Coastal Flood
100
80
60 -
40
20 -
0
New York City
□ Current trend
□ CCGG
□ CCGS
□ HCGG ■ HCGS
10yr
2020s
2050s 2080s
21st Century Decades
In 2008 Mayor Bloomberg appointed the NPCC, NYC Panel on Climate Change
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1196,
Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response-New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 Report May 2010
i"y C*% The New York V   \mS Academy of Sciences
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi /10.1111/nyas.2010.1196.issue-1/issuetoc
mi
Appendix A
CLIMATE RISK INFORMATION
Climate Change Scenarios & Implications _for NYC Infrastructure
New York City Panel on Climate Change
Lead Authors
Radley Horton {Columbia University), Cynthia Rosenzweig (NASA, Columbia
University)
Contributing Authors
Vivien Görnitz (Columbia University), Daniel Bader (Columbia University),
Megan G'Grady (Columbia University)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.eom/doi/10.1111 /j.1749-6632.2010.05323.x/pdf
FIGURE C.1. CornoreSiensivi Set of Sea Level Rise Projections New York City and the Surrounding Region
1 M
Oft
NPCC's 2080 SLR Scenarios for NYC
3 ft" 4 ft
26 2fi 30 012: 3*1 |£ tt 4Ü 32 U 4£ 4 hQ 52 54 Sfc^Bft g| r-l RMi jir I
5 ft
Tim schematic shorn sea level rise praj&sticns for ifi
2WQs
mtatm to the 2QÜQ-2QM period, based m Ohres distind
meih&fotoQto*- 77w <M otoe tefcftetf tm stow p^Mfraw fasetf m the iPCC-ada(i\&i mM, 7fte ftCwe tefcteo fcare stow jwtpeffflns based on (he Rshm^orffiMNiw method, ad/usferf forkxä conttäms. Each of 0» hvs is -stoiw? as ftstograro, iwffi ifte /'axis ccnfaürifng fhe mouej'-bssed prcöaWtäy faf that model atone, ssscci'stei wäft (he sea teiraf .n'se iTiftj.'va1 show? 0/7 tte if-am. jTig Rapid /os-Afefl sea imis) rrse is indicated by the teükief on ihs xsxis; no probability is associated iiwWi this fangs. Scum: CöfuiR&'a UniVers;!^ Center ferC^ate SjBtenjs Research
TABLE C.1. Total Sea Level Rise Projections in Inches for New York City and the Surrounding Region for Four Different Methods _
IPCC Global Estimate + Local Subsidence
iPCG-adapted MsBrods for the NYC
Rahretorf/Horton Method + Local Subsidence CR I Rapid Ice-Melt Sea Level Riss
3.7 (1.4 to 5.5}»
4.9 {3.7 to 6.2)^
91(5,0*013.6)3
13,1 (10.0 to 16.6)"
NA?
17.8{e.3to25.6)s
24.6(18.2 to 31,6)'<
Soiread: CCS«. ÄMft JfPCC Mt ifaton ei st MB.
(10.4to23.4)s
22.2 (14.9 to 30.0)*
2B.1 {22.eto33.7j?
		
~4ft		-oft7
NYSERDA-Sponsored ClimAID
Project
2008-2011
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/environment/emep/clim-aid-synthesis-draft.pdf
NYC Street Length (miies) and % Flooded, for Three Flood Scenarios
mmm
0)
CD
c
0)
CO
000.0
2000,0
0.0
10.6%
100-Yr Storm
25.3%
with 2-ft SLR
33.8%
with 4-ft SLR
□ Flooded Street Length I       Dry Street Length Total: ~ 8,632 miles
Flood Risks to Subway and Road Tunnels from 100-y Coastal Storm Surge
2 Modes of Water Entry into Tunnels
a) Mostly Vertically via Subway Ventilation and Entrances
b) Sub-Horizontally into inclined Rail and Road Tunnels
Modified Storm Surge Time-History
00 " 00
Q
<
Q)
m 6
I
H = Lowest Critical Elevation of System (NAVD88)
Peak 10ft
H = 7 ft (LCE)
120 140
Time after Storm Surge Starts (in minutes)
h/(t) = h.W-H    h2'(t) = h2(t)-H
Vertical Flow
through subway entrances & ventilation grates
--' r		
	TT	V
h't
Average Flow Rate (ft3/s)
Qi(t) = A0Vt(t)
A0 = total area of openings (ft2)
Average Flow Velocity (ft/s)
Vt(t) = ^2ght'(t)
g = gravitational constant
W, Volume of Water Entering Opening Area Ac
W = fQ(t)dt = fAQV(t)dt
u36 minutes
aw i«» uw
Time t after Tunnel Flooding Starts, in seconds
Flooded Subway and Under-River Tunnels, Lower Manhattan, 1% Flood (length overflow)
Legend
° Stations
Ventilation openings (data provided)
100 Year Flood
O    0% Enters •   100% Enters
Under River Tunnels (data provided)
100 Year Flood
0% Flooded 100% Flooded
Subway tunnels below Houston St (data provided)
100 Year Flood
0%
42%
100%
■ ■ Added length for volume overflow
Flooded Subway and Under River Tunnels, Lower Manhattan, 1% Flood + 4' SLR (length overflow)
Legend
° Stations
Ventilation openings (data provided)
100 Year Flood + 4' SLR
• 0% Enters
• 100% Enters
Under River Tunnels (data provided)
100 Year Flood + 4' SLR
0%
100%
Subway tunnels below Houston St (data provided)
100 Year Flood + 4' SLR
^^^B 0%
^^^B 17%
71 %
^^^B 100%
■ ■ ■     Added length for volume overflow
N
A
0    600 1,200
2,400       3,600 4,800 I Feet
Flooded Under River Tunnels, Midtown, 1% Flood + 2' SLR (length overflow)
Legend
° Stations
Ventilation openings (data provided)
100 Year Flood + 2'SLR
o	0% Enters
o	3% Enters
c	8% Enters
c	17% Enters
o	72% Enters
•	100% Enters
Under River Tunnels (data provided)
100 Year Flood + 2'SLR ^« 0%
3%
^™ 100%
■ ■ Added length for volume overflow
Flooded Under River Tunnels, Harlem River Crossings, 1% Flood + 4' SLR (length overflow)
• What is the expected direct damage from the flooding of the transportation infrastructure ?
• How long will it take for the various components of infrastructure to have their services restored ?
• What will be the 3sonoin\s Id sses from the transportation outages and extended restoration times ?
Combined (economic + physical-damage) Losses for the New York City Metropolitan region for a 100-year storm surge, for three sea level rise scenarios S1, S2, S3 (for 2010 assets with 2010-dollar valuation); and assuming linear recovery of economy over the minimum outage time of the subway system for (S1) 21 days, (32) 25 days, and (S3) 29 days, respectively.
Scenario	Economic Losses from Outage ($ billion)	Direct Physical Damage ($ billion)	Total Loss ($ billion)
S1, current sea level 2100	48	10	$58
2 (2-foot rise in sea level) 2040s	57	13	- $70
S3 (4-foot rise in sea level) 2080s	68	^^16	$84
Multipliers for 40 and 80 year time horizons as a function of growth rate r when p=2 (i.e. add each year 2% of initial asset value).
Effective Economic Growth Rate r(%/year):
52- Loss Multiplier for 40 Years:
53- Loss Multiplier for 80 Years:
0.0 1.50  1.75 2.00
1.8 2.6
2.91 6.39
3.16 7.50
3.44 8.83
For Transportation, and Specifically the Subway System, what measures should be undertaken to avoid such losses?
1. In all current and future flood zones, seal all ventilation street grates and replace passive 'open' ventilation with forced 'closed' ventilation. This requires new fan plants, and uses more energy.
2. In all flood prone zones, provide safe flood gates at all entrances and ventilation shafts; and/or safer: surround all entrances and openings by sufficiently high berms and/or levees: "Taipei-Solution"- Go up before you step down !
3. What are the Costs? Needs engineering studies, but costs are likely to be at least 25% of the expected avoided losses: i.e. in excess of $ 15 to 20 Billion ?
Structural "Solution": 3 or 4 Barriers. Probably Unsustainable. Why?
600
^ 500
'■      i      I      i      I      i      I      i      I      i li Contribution to SLR from Greenland Ice Sheet'
1 g As a function of average temperature increase
+8°C
9999999999999999999999999999999955
FIGURE 2. Flexible Adaptation Pathways
T»H0 {decades)
Monitor & Reassess!
Acceptable risk
m 3dap?at;on
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8
Lead Authors
David C. Major (Columbia University), Megan O'Grady (Columbia University}
Risk Management Tools: Minimizing the Risk via Mitigation and Adaptation Measures (Let's use the Risk Equation and GIS-based Models!):
Risk = Sum (Hazard x Assets x Vulnerability)
Mitlg.:       Reduce GW + SLR Hazards Adapt:     Land Use Planning & Zoning,
Considerate Placements of new Assets,
Relocation of Essential Assets.
Levees & Dams (?).
Equity Issues.
or by Risk = Sum (Hazard x Assets x Vulnerability)
Aikipl:      Good Engineering, Construction Quality-Control, Codes and Code Enforcement, Retrofitting, Raising Assets in Place Reinforcing Levees and Pump Stations
The good Message is
(from MMC Study, see below):
For every $1 invested in Disaster Loss Mitigation & Prevention there is, on Average, a Return of ~$4 Saved in NOT Incurred Losses.
National Institute of Building Science
Multi-hazard Mitigation Council (NIBS/MMC) Study "Mitigation Saves":
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/Mtt
http://green-changemakers.blogspot.com/2010/09/hafencity-case-study-on-future-adaptive.html
ZZL
1.Incorporate the CC information (e.g. the storm surge map) into all strategic planning d and capital spending decisions.
2. Have operational interim plans to minimize impact and losses, until the assets are retrofitted and are engineered to be not any longer vulnerable to probable, expected flood hazards.
^^^^^^ ^^^^
BfiB
Iii
-
■
Site
r.
í
1. Hazard Assessments for Critical Structure
strive for the Longest Possible Low-Probability / High-Consequence make up the "Tails" pf Probability Dis
2. Systematic Monitoring of Nevy G^o-Sc
.. UÉ SI IK        m   fŠ» UMO       mm      I ji
Findings that can be Relevant to Updating Disaster
ords to catch s (that
utions).
Hazards and Risks Is, Function
III: H
Essential Govern
3. Decision Makers and Regulators need to have
Protocols in Place, and Pru Incorporate these New Findings in a Timely^ Socially Responsible, and Effective Way
Mmm