asbpa presentation_final

1/12/2017

1

Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure EngineeringVOLGENAU SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

1Where Innovation Is Tradition

Projected Storm Surge Flooding in Maryland and Virginia for 2100 and Valuation of Protective

Ecosystem Services of Wetland and marshes for current condition

1

Ali Mohammad Rezaie1 Celso Ferreira2

1 PhD student, George Mason University, [email protected]

2 Assistant Professor, George Mason University

* In collaboration with Margaret Walls and Jessica Chu, Resources for the

Future (RFF)

Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure EngineeringVOLGENAU SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING 2

Outline

Background on storm surge and wetland

Integrated Ecosystem Valuation Framework

Modeling Surge and Wave

Future Scenarios

Results & Findings

Conclusions and Future Research

mailto:[email protected]

1/12/2017

2


1. Background

Total Property damage $5.3 billion ~ 80% in VA & MD (Blake et al. 2011).

The Insurance Information Institute ranked Virginia 9th and Maryland 18th state vulnerable to hurricane

Climate Change & Sea Level Rise will double the Global financial losses by 2100 (Hallegatte 2012 and

Mendelsohn et al. 2012)

Global and Local SLR projection vary from region to region

Global SLR projection 0.3 to 1.2m by 2100 (Melillo et al 2014).

Mid-Atlantic region of the US, 2.2 m by 2100 (Koch, 2009)

SLR near Hampton Roads, VA a 0.7 to 1.6m and Maryland 0.7 to 1.74m by 2100 (Boesch et al. 2013)

Hurricane Isabel flooding, Hampton Road and Virginia Beach, 2003


1. Background

Effectiveness of natural and nature based infrastructure varies with location and storm

intensity

In Louisiana 14.5km of wetland reduces 1m of surge traveled over (USACE 1963).

Ranging from 1m per 60 km of wetlands to 5 km based on storm intensity (Wamsley et al. 2010)

1 % increase in wetland continuity decreases storm surge by 8.4-11.2% (Barbier et al. 2013)

The protective ecosystem services also vary with property value (Walls, 2015) and population

nearby (Haddad, 2015)

Bridges et al, 2015

1/12/2017

3

Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure EngineeringVOLGENAU SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

2. Objectives

5

Quantify the Future Flooding in VA & MD for projectedClimate Change, Marsh Migration and Sea Level Rise

Develop a framework to Quantify Protective EcosystemServices of NNBFS such as Marsh and Wetlands

Analyze the flood impacts of land development due toclimate change emission scenarios and sea level rise inducedMarsh Migration


Overall Framework

1. Field Measurement : of water level, wave and current to improve defining geospatial parameters in local and regional models

2. Modeling Approach : Simulating surge and wave for local and regional scale

3. Econometric Models : Incorporate simulated hydrodynamics parameters to calculate the avoided damage

1/12/2017

4


Hurricane Isabel Track (left); Study area

(Source: ESRI, Google Maps)

3. Modeling Storm Surge and Wave: Study Area

Duration : 6 -20 September 2003

Comparable to the great Potomac-Chesapeake Hurricane of 1933 in Virginia (VA) and Maryland (MD)

Landfall within North Carolina as Category 2 Hurricane with 170 Kmh wind speed

Reached Category 5 at three different occasions with peak wind 265 mph

Caused $5.3 billion in total property damage, nearly 80 percent of which was in VA and MD


• ADvanced CIRCulation Model (ADCIRC)

- Computes the water level, current and wind velocities due to hurricane and

storms solving shallow water equation

• Simulating WAves Nearshore (SWAN)

- Calculates the wave heights and relevant wave parameters

ADCIRC simulates water level,

currents and wind, and pass it to

SWAN that computes the wave and

sends back the wave information to

ADCIRC that includes wave in the

simulated tidal level.

( ) 0h

hUh

t

^( , ) s b wh h

U p x yU U g f k U

t g h h h

Coupled Surge & Wave model: ADCIRC + SWAN

1/12/2017

5


FEMA Region III Mesh (left most), Mesh Resolution and Bathymetry

3. ADCIRC–SWAN: Mesh & Bathymetry

1.8 million nodes covering areas from 60 degree west meridian to the mainland in the east coast extending up to 15m contour


Comparison between Model

simulated maximum water level and

observed NOAA tidal gauges

3. Model Validation

Spatial Validation at different

water level stations

1/12/2017

6


Schematic of general modeling design for Projecting Land cover (Sohl et al 2014)

4. Climate Change Land Cover Projections


Current and Projected Climate Change Land Cover for 2100

4. Land Cover Projections (USGS)

1/12/2017

7


Marsh Migration Due to Multiple SLR

(http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr)

4. Marsh Migration (NOAA)

NOAA Marsh Migration (NOAA, 2007; 2010) :

Using Linear superimposition

approach, tidal variability and existing hydrological

connectivity

Marshes unable to maintain their elevation relative to sea level will slowly submerge and

convert to an intertidal mudflat or open water

(Morris et al., 2002)

Based on the varying frequency, salinity and

time of inundation certain types of wetland

will sustain within an established tidal range

(Marcy, 2011).


Four Sea Level Rise Projections from 1992 to 2100

(Mitchel et al, 2013)

4. Sea Level Rise Projections

7.6 ft. (2.3m) of SLR

1.6 ft.(0.48m) of SLR

Based on the

synthesis and

recommendations

from National

Climate Assessment

(Parris et al. 2012).

Historic SLR :

projected with the

observed rate of sea

level rise in the past

century

Highest SLR :

Maximum ice sheet

loss and glacial

melting

http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

1/12/2017

8


Land Cover 2001

4. Combined Land Cover for 2100

A1 & 2 ft. SLR A1 & 6 ft. SLR

B2 & 6 ft. SLRB2 & 2 ft. SLR

For developed land cover classes the Climate Change induced land cover changes are prioritized

And for the wetland classes the Marsh Migration Projections overruled.


4. Future Scenarios for 2100

Storm (A) Baseline

(B)Future Scenarios at 2100

Climate Change (CC)

Emission Scenarios

Projected Sea Level

Rise (SLR)

Marsh

Migration (MM)

Due to SLR

Isabel

Running the storm with

respective land cover

data and no sea level

rise

A1 A2 B1 B2

Historic

1.6ft

(0.48768

m)

Highest

7.6 ft.

(2.31648m

)

1 ft.

SLR

6 ft.

SLR

Storm Name Year Maximum Wind Speed (km/h)

Irene 2011 167

Isabel 2003 269

Dennis 1999 167

Ernesto 2006 111

Floyd 1999 250

Since each simulation on 1.8 million

node mesh is computationally (super !)

expensive, the study started off with

Isabel which would provide an extreme

flooding condition in the study area.

1/12/2017

9


5. Results and Discussions

Projected Flood extent and intensity for 2100

Increase in total inundated area and intensity of theflooding in terms of flood depth

Scenario with most extreme outcome

Analysis of the projected flooding due to the scenarios

Avoided Damage due to the presence of the wetland


Isabel (2003) Isabel A1_6ft_2100 Isabel A2_6ft_2100

Isabel B1_6ft_2100 Isabel B2_6ft_2100

5. Projected Flood Extent & Depth for MD

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

1/12/2017

10


Isabel (2001)

Isabel A1_2ft_2100 Isabel A2_2ft_2100


75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

75°0'W

75°0'W

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

39°0'N 39°0'N

38°0'N 38°0'N

5. Projected Flood Extent & Depth for MD


Scenarios% Increase in Flooded

Area *

Increase in Total FloodArea (Km2)

A1 – MM6Ft. SLR

78.25 % 1391.1696

A2 – MM6Ft. SLR

78.03 % 1387.3248

B1 – MM6Ft. SLR

78.35 % 1393.0065

B2 – MM6Ft. SLR

78.61 % 1397.6091

A1 – MM2Ft. SLR

5.99 % 106.5429

A2 – MM6Ft. SLR

7.05 % 125.3367

B1– MM6Ft. SLR

5.99 % 106.4214

B2 – MM6Ft. SLR

6.88 % 122.3244

For all 0.48m (2ft.) CC-SLR-MM Scenario 66% of theflooded area will have 1-2m flood depth

For 2.3m (6ft.) CC-SLR-MM 35 % flooded area willhave 3-4 m depth and 30 % would have 2-3m.

With higher rate of SLR impact of CC & MM arealmost the same as more marshes are submerged ormigrated inward.

For a lower SLR A2 emission causes more flood thanother emission scenarios * % increase compared with

Isabel flooded area

1/12/2017

11


Isabel (2003)



76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

5. Projected Flood Extent & Depth for VA


Isabel (2003)



76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

76°0'W

76°0'W

77°0'W

77°0'W

38°0'N 38°0'N

37°0'N 37°0'N

5. Projected Flood Extent & Depth for VA

1/12/2017

12


Scenarios% Increase in Flooded

Area *

Increase in Total FloodArea (Km2)

A1 – MM6Ft. SLR

116.61 % 1895.468

A2 – MM6Ft. SLR

118.55 % 1926.997

B1 – MM6Ft. SLR

118.07 % 1919.119

B2 – MM6Ft. SLR

122.21 % 1986.499

A1 – MM2Ft. SLR

19.54 % 317.6352

A2 – MM6Ft. SLR

28.16 % 457.7616

B1– MM6Ft. SLR

19.56 % 317.8683

B2 – MM6Ft. SLR

25.85 % 420.138

For 0.48m (2ft.) CC-SLR-MM 32% flooded area will have1-2m flood depth and 17% of 2-3m depth

For 2.3m (6ft.) SLR-MM 25 % flooded area will have 2-3m depth and 19 % would have 3-4m.

For a lower SLR A2 emission causes more flood thanother emission scenarios

With higher rate of SLR impact of migrating marsh ishigher due to a higher loss and landward shifting ofmarshes * % increase compared with

Isabel flooded area


5. Preliminary Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services

StormsNo. of Flooded

residential parcels, with wetlands

No. of Flooded residential

parcels, with bare land

Total Damage, with 2010 wetlands land

cover ($)

Total Damage, with bare land instead

of wetlands ($)

Diff (Avoided damages from

having wetlands instead of bare

land)

Total wetland area (e+p), in

acres

Avg value per acre

Dennis 10,756 40,843 $42,800,000 $105,000,000 $62,200,000 887,870.20 $70.06

Floyd 14,197 47,055 $56,200,000 $117,000,000 $60,800,000 887,870.20 $68.48

Isabel 41,484 123,834 $267,000,000 $512,000,000 $245,000,000 887,870.20 $275.94

Ernesto 14,091 44,645 $54,900,000 $108,000,000 $53,100,000 887,870.20 $59.81

Irene 25,957 74,400 $108,000,000 $316,000,000 $208,000,000 887,870.20 $234.27

Difference in Flood Damagebetween with wetland andwithout wetland in thestudy area

Taking out estuarine andpalustrine wetland from theland cover and simulate thestorm surge flood

1/12/2017

13


5. Results and Take Home Message

Impact of climate change induced land use pattern is higher for alower rate of Sea Level Rise and SLR induced marsh migration

For a higher submersion and landward shifting of marshes thehigher regional environmental sustainability will not helpprotect from flooding as the estuarine and palustrine wetlandwill be almost gone under water!

And the protective ecosystem service of wetlands ranges from 70USD to 275 USD per acre for low to high intensity storm occurringin Maryland.


6. Future Research

Improving the Hurricane Wind Forcing: H Wind, PBL Model Wind

Preparing detailed Flood depth Analysis for a well mix of storms

Quantification of Land Development and Marsh Migration

Change

Adding erosion based damages in the overall framework

Adding 100% flood plain in future flood assessment

1/12/2017

14


Q & A & Suggestions

Thank You !

The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he's

one who asks the right questions.”

― Claude Lévi-Strauss, French anthropologist and ethnologist

For further Query : [email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

asbpa presentation_final

Documents