Extreme Weather Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Through Strategic Asset Management & Infrastructure Investments
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•237 views
Natural Environment Climate Change Summit, Extreme Weather Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Through Strategic Asset Management & Infrastructure Investments, Robert J. Muir, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Manager, Stormwater, City of Markham, March 7, 2019, Ajax, Ontario The presentation explores the drivers for cost efficiency assessment infrastructure investments including those to mitigate flooding due to extreme weather and future climate change impacts on high intensity rainfall that contributes to urban flooding. Flood risk factors including severe rainfall trends are explored as well as hydrologic stresses due to urbanization and design standard evolution. Measures to reduce flooding in the City of Markham are explored using benefit cost analysis in the context of its comprehensive city-wide Flood Control Program. The program includes many projects that demonstrate a high return on investment (ROI) for flood risk reduction, making them eligible for Infrastructure Canada's Disaster Mitigation Adaptation Fund (DMAF) grant funding. An evaluation of risk management strategies is presented that includes traditional grey infrastructure engineering solutions such as sewer capacity upgrades, and emerging green infrastructure strategies including engineered and enhanced assets (e.g., bioswales, rain gardens, infiltration trenches, GSI). The strategies take a holistic, system-wide approach to evaluating benefits and lifecycle costs, including initial capital on on-going operation and maintenance costs. The analysis will be presented a t the annual Water Environment Association of Ontario conference in 2019 in Toronto, Ontario. A link to the paper material is presented here: https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/03/an-economic-analysis-of-green-v-grey.html
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Extreme Weather Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Through Strategic Asset Management & Infrastructure Investments
Similar to Extreme Weather Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Through Strategic Asset Management & Infrastructure Investments (20)
More from Robert Muir
More from Robert Muir (7)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Extreme Weather Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Through Strategic Asset Management & Infrastructure Investments
- 1. Durham Region's Natural Environment Climate Change Summit Extreme Weather Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Through Strategic Asset Management & Infrastructure Investments Robert J. Muir, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Manager, Stormwater, City of Markham March 7, 2019 - Ajax, Ontario 1
- 2. OUTLINE 1) Regulations on Resiliency 2) Upgrading Historical Service vs. Future Adaptation 3) Rainfall Risk Factors 4) Strategic Flood Resiliency – Where to Act in Durham 5) Policies, Programs and Projects for Cost-Effective Resiliency 6) Markham Flood Control Program Review – Grey and Green Infrastructure Strategies 2
- 3. Provincial Policy Statement (2014): “Infrastructure … shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change ….” Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act (2015): “Infrastructure planning and investment should minimize the impact of infrastructure on the environment … should be designed to be resilient to effects of climate change.” Environmental Assessments (2017): “… proponents to consider measures to adapt to climate change: How vulnerable might a project be to a changing climate? Bill 139 (2017) : “OP shall contain policies that identify goals, objectives and actions to … provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency.” Ontario Drivers for Assessing Climate Change Risks 3Provincial Policy Statement 2014 Infr. for Jobs and Prosperity Bill 139EAs and Class EAs
- 4. Ontario Drivers for Assessing Climate Change Risks 4 O. Reg. 588/17: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE (July 1, 2019) “first strategic asset management policy” shall include “the municipality’s commitment to consider, as part of its asset management planning” including “the actions that may be required to address the vulnerabilities that may be caused by climate change”. (July 1, 2024) “Every asset management plan must include the proposed levels of service for core stormwater management assets: 1. Percentage of properties resilient to a 100-year storm. 2. Percentage of stormwater management system resilient to a 5-year storm. O.Reg. 588/17
- 5. We have always had flooding And historical level of service ‘gaps’ 5
- 6. … longstanding ‘gaps’ are challenging. 6
- 7. Repeated operational problems? Should not be confused with climate change riskshttp://http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/12/toronto-go-train-flood-avoidable-july-8.html 7
- 8. Difference Between Increasing Historical Levels of Service & Future Climate Change Adaptation ? 8 • Historical upgrades first = very extensive capacity upgrades to meet today’s standards. • Next climate adaptation requires +20% more capacity. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 15Min.RainDesignIntensity(mm/hr) Pre-1960 Post-1980 Future Climate (?) CC Adaptation Design Standard Upgrades in Old Areas Yesterday 2-Year Today 100-Year Tomorrow 100-Year
- 9. WastewaterStrategically Increase Flood Resiliency for Today’s Extremes in “Old Areas” Risks increase in old areas with future climate New subdivisions not impacted - today’s design safety factors provide future resiliency Old pre-1980 subdivisions Flood Prone Sanitary Sewer Today’s 100- Year Storm Flood Prone Sanitary Sewer Future Storm (30% Larger) 9Steeles Ave. E Hwy 407
- 10. WastewaterRainfall Risk Factors – No Change in Design Intensities 10 • Since 1990, 0.2% drop in rain design intensities for long term stations (link). • Some RCM’s suggest lower extreme rain in 2050 (link). • Still need future safety factors.
- 11. WastewaterWhere Should Durham Consider Added Flood Resiliency ? 11 • Areas with high historical growth and intensification before modern storm drainage and sanitary sewer standards have been implemented. Where? • Construction Era, Infrastructure Standards and Extreme Rainfall Flood Resiliency and Risk https://bit.ly/2TTE627 How? • Reducing Flood Risk from Flood Plain to Floor Drain. Developing a Canadian Standard for Design Standard Adaptation in Existing Communities https://bit.ly/2GMINqR
- 12. WastewaterWhere Should Durham Consider Added Flood Resiliency ? 12 Urban Areas Circa 2000
- 13. WastewaterWhere Should Durham Consider Added Flood Resiliency ? 13 Urban Areas Circa 1966
- 14. 14 Insurance Claims and Flood Reports Concentrated in Historical High Risk Areas Overland Flow Paths
- 15. Cost- Effective Policies, Programs & Capital Works Projects 15 • Policies / Design Standards (prevention): – Land use planning / floodplain mgmt. – Engineering standards • Programs (low cost remediation) – Sanitary downspout disconnection – Plumbing protection / backwater valves • Capital Works Projects (high cost remediation) – Sewer capacity upgrades (grey) – Storage facilities (grey) – Low impact development (green ?) 60 Times Reduction in Flood Density Double Sanitary Capacity with Lower Storm Flows Is it cost effective ? Do Benefits exceed Costs (ROI) ?
- 16. Green Infrastructure – Recent Local Tender Costs https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/05/are-lids-financially-sustainable-in.html 16 Approximately $600,000 per hectare in capital cost. Retrofitting Ontario’s 852,000 urban hectares would cost about half a trillion dollars. US costs of $860,000 per impervious hectare give cost of $360 billion. Ajax Rain Gardens $350,000 to service 0.14 hectares Philadelphia - projects
- 17. 1 10 100 1000 10000 Downspout Program. Backwater Valve Pgm. Sanitary Upgrades Storm Upgrades Green Infr. Retrofit Option Markham Flood Control Program Activities and Costs Cost($M) $3 M $1300/ha $27 M $11,000/ha $253 M $120,000/ha $1.7 B $726,000/ha
- 18. 1 10 100 1000 10000 Downspout Program. Backwater Valve Pgm. Sanitary Upgrades Storm Upgrades Green Infr. Retrofit Option 50 Shades of Grey to Green Strategies Cost($M) Strategy A (grey) Benefit / Cost = 2.52 $ 2.83 M / yr Strategy D (90% grey + 10% green) Benefit / Cost = 0.91 $8.92 M / yr WEAO paper : https://bit.ly/2VEIMtb
- 19. Conclusions • New regulations, guidelines require design & actions to adapt to future climate: • Resiliency gaps are in historical service areas under existing weather stresses. • Improving existing infrastructure levels of service (first step) has a climate adaptation co-benefit. • Standards, programs and capital works increase resiliency with varying degrees of cost-effectiveness: • Today’s standards & low cost programs offer effective & timely flood risk reduction. • Grey & green infrastructure require assessment of cost effectiveness for flood remediation. Recent studies have gaps: see Storm Warts. • Markham’s Flood Control Program has a favourable benefit/cost ratio considering flood control benefits and full lifecycle cost accounting: • Alternative strategies show lower cost effectiveness. See WEAO 2019 Paper. • Upcoming National Research Council guidelines will help guide robust analysis. 19
- 20. Thank You Questions ? More Rob : Blog: www.CityFloodMap.com Podcast: Open During Construction on iTunes Twitter: @RobertMuir_PEng More City of Markham : Web: www.markham.ca Twitter: @CityofMarkham 20
- 21. Resources On Flood Risk Factors & Resiliency 21 • Observed rain intensities decreasing in S. Ontario (Environment Canada data): – https://www.chijournal.org/C449 – http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/07/decrease-in-southern-ontario-design.html • Design rain intensities not increasing (engineering studies): – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/03/extreme-rainfall-and-climate-change-in.html • Predicted lower rainfall intensities in Ontario: – http://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/04/climate-models-predict-decreasing.html • Urbanization affects flood risk: – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2016/08/urbanization-and-runoff-explain.html • Historical design standards affect flood risk: – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/03/construction-era-infrastructure.html • Operational risk factors vs climate change risks (GO Train): – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2015/12/toronto-go-train-flood-avoidable-july-8.html • Lake Ontario levels in 2017 barely above historical extremes: – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2017/09/toronto-island-flooding-2017-were-lake.html • Green infrastructure lifecycle costs: – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2018/07/green-infrastructure-capital-and.html • Grey and green infrastructure strategies for flood control, erosion mitigation and water quality improvement: – https://www.cityfloodmap.com/2019/02/an-economic-analysis-of-green-v-grey.html
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon – I’d like to talk about extreme weather resiliency and climate adaptation – 2 different but related things. And Strategic infrastructure investments to mange risks.
- First I’d like to touch on the new and emerging regulatory drivers for municipalities to consider climate resiliency and to document level of service for flood control through asset management. Secondly I’ll distinguish between upgrading historical levels of service (fixing old stuff) and future climate adaptation. Thirdly pursuing flood resiliency strategically – where in our systems do we need this? What are the tools. What policies, programs and projects are cost effective fro achieving resiliency. I’ll share Markham’s overall flood reduction activities – what are the low hanging fruit for quick cheap wins. Lastly I’d like to explore new technologies that receive a lot attention – green infrastructure - and share some of the challenges and opportunities we see with Ontario-wide implementation when it comes to reliable, cost-effective, timely flood risk reduction. I’ll share how it fits into Markham’s overall strategy.
- These are recent policies and acts that direct us to consider a changing climate and to ensure that infrastructure that we design is resilient to climate change.
- In O.Reg. 588/17 Strategic asset management policies are required by July 1 2019 – less than a year away considering vulnerabilities due to climate change and adaptation opportunities. And then in this Regulation in 2024, every plan must indicate levels of service – what percentage of the stormwater management system is resilient to a 100-year storm and to a 5 year storm.
- We have always had flooding – we have a legacy of historical level of service gaps. Even back when we were getting our beer in stubbies.
- And longstanding gaps are challenging to address .. We can renew the Beer Store logo easier than upgrading decades of old infrastructure.
- Repeated operational problems should not be confused with climate change risks. This GO Train line only started in the late 1970’s … stranding trains in the same spot since 1981. I’m including a slides with links to resources on topics like this – increasing train frequency vs decreasing rain frequency, historical lake levels.
- And this brings me to the difference between upgrading old infrastructure and climate adaptation. Fixing old stuff and increasing its capacity happens first. It is most of the work. Sometimes we increase capacity of a sewer 400 % to go from yesterday’s 2-year design standard to today’s 100-year standard. After that comes climate adaptation – adding a bit more for the possibility of more extreme future weather.
- Strategically where do we need more resiliency? In old areas. This map shows all of Markham’s sanitary sewer network. Pre 1980 subdivisions are the purple areas. Red dots are flood-prone manholes for today’s 100 year storm. Its virtually all in the old areas. Purple dots show where we have a bit more flood risk in the future – same areas. So if we manage old areas for todays weather we take care of tomorrows adaptation. Interesting to note that no new subdivisions are flooded under future climate. This means safety factors for the future are already are built in Markham existing design criteria.
- What are the tools to mange risks in the old areas – there is a progression of 3 Ps: Policies, Programs and Capital Projects Policies and programs are no-regrets high return on investment activities. City-wide capital works projects may not be cost effective – again we need strategic implementation checking if benefits exceed the costs – is there a strong return on investment, ROI?
- Let look at green infrastructure costs from 20 recent demonstration projects in Ontario – bioswales, raingardens, infiltration trenches. Cost is 600,000 per hectare – over 1M an acre to treat land with low impact development LIDs. Extrapolate that over urban areas in Ontario and the costs is in the hundreds of billions – even half a trillion. US costs suggest a bit low at over 300 billion. That is just capital and no operations and maintenance.
- How infrastructure about the cost effectiveness of infrastructure investments – we can look at this with Markham’s Flood Control Program and green we examined This has the costs of all Markham’s Flood Control activities (list them). We can break these down into Best Practices – the No Regrets Policies and Programs, a million dollars each – they have high benefit cost ratio, maybe cost a less that 1500 per hectare. CLICK Grey infrastructure, those are sanitary and storm sewer upgrades – 283 millions with a benefit-cost ratio of 2 considering insured or higher with total losses. 11 thousand and 120 thousand per hectare respectively – the benefit cost or flood reduction considering insured losses is 2.5 – spend a dollar get 2.5 dollars of benefit CLICK – then Green infrastructure, if we converted a quarter of the city, we would have a benefit cost ratio of 0.11 for insured losses – spend a dollar, get 11 cents of benefit CLICK – We have 283 million approved in the overall program. An we consider green infrastructure only in the most strategic locations, as part of park revitalization and for one large naturalized pond retrofit costing 10’s of millions. CLICK – But we cannot justify spending over 1.7 B in capital across the city, raising taxes 30%, to add rain gardens and bioswales in all old areas, along all the streets. Today in a boardroom in Markham these costs, excluding green infrastructure, are being used to set the Flood Control Program fee for the next 5 years – it is a non-starter to suggest that we would adopt green infrastructure, increase costs and fees 6 times to $300 a year which is about 30% of Markham’s total tax intake. Unrealistic. We must focus on the most cost effective grey infrastructure solutions for flood control. We look at other benefits in the WEOA paper – green infrastructure benefits do not exceed costs
- How infrastructure about the cost effectiveness of infrastructure investments – we can look at this with Markham’s Flood Control Program and green we examined This has the costs of all Markham’s Flood Control activities (list them). We can break these down into Best Practices – the No Regrets Policies and Programs, a million dollars each – they have high benefit cost ratio, maybe cost a less that 1500 per hectare. CLICK Grey infrastructure, those are sanitary and storm sewer upgrades – 283 millions with a benefit-cost ratio of 2 considering insured or higher with total losses. 11 thousand and 120 thousand per hectare respectively – the benefit cost or flood reduction considering insured losses is 2.5 – spend a dollar get 2.5 dollars of benefit CLICK – then Green infrastructure, if we converted a quarter of the city, we would have a benefit cost ratio of 0.11 for insured losses – spend a dollar, get 11 cents of benefit CLICK – We have 283 million approved in the overall program. An we consider green infrastructure only in the most strategic locations, as part of park revitalization and for one large naturalized pond retrofit costing 10’s of millions. CLICK – But we cannot justify spending over 1.7 B in capital across the city, raising taxes 30%, to add rain gardens and bioswales in all old areas, along all the streets. Today in a boardroom in Markham these costs, excluding green infrastructure, are being used to set the Flood Control Program fee for the next 5 years – it is a non-starter to suggest that we would adopt green infrastructure, increase costs and fees 6 times to $300 a year which is about 30% of Markham’s total tax intake. Unrealistic. We must focus on the most cost effective grey infrastructure solutions for flood control. We look at other benefits in the WEOA paper – green infrastructure benefits do not exceed costs