The document discusses the vulnerabilities of coastal areas to rising sea levels and extreme weather events as part of the National Disaster Recovery Framework and Local Recovery Planning Manager Program. It emphasizes the importance of risk assessments to prioritize actions that can mitigate future losses and details methodology and findings regarding projected impacts on various property classes in New Jersey. Additionally, it highlights the need for state and municipal collaboration to drive effective planning and risk management in disaster recovery efforts.

1. COASTAL VULNERABILITY
UNDERSTANDING
Infrastructure Week 2015
http://infrastructureweek.org
@RebuildRenew
#RebuildRenew

2. Part 1: National Disaster Recovery Framework and
the Local Recovery Planning Manager Program
Part 2: Risk Assessments
■ Purpose
■ Methodology
Part 3: Risk Assessment Results
Part 4: Tackling Risk – Who’s Driving?
Topics

3. WHO WE ARE

4. Nonprofit NGO promoting responsible
land-use policies to:
■ Revitalize cities;
■ Preserve open space;
■ Keep housing affordable;
■ Encourage transportation choices
Mission
www.njfuture.org

5. Environmental Resources Mgmt/Restoration
■ Aquatic Ecologists, Lake Managers, Fish and Benthic
Ecologists;
■ Wetland and Natural Resource Ecologists;
■ Civil Engineers – Water resources, Hydrology;
■ Geotechnical Engineers – Soil Science, Geologists;
■ GIS Specialists
Services
www.princetonhydro.com

6. NDRF/LRPM PROGRAM
PART 1:

7. Initial Involvement
■ FEMA seeking a partner for local recovery effort
■ FEMA/Merck Foundation request to create LRPM position
■ New Jersey Recovery Fund transitioned from relief to recovery

8. FEMA’s National Disaster Recovery Framework
“ … strongly recommends that
State Governors as well as local
government ... prepare as part
of their disaster recovery plans
to appoint Local Disaster
Recovery Managers to lead
disaster recovery for the
jurisdiction.”

9. The Program
Screening Criteria
1. Considerable storm damage
2. Limited or no in-house planning capabilities
3. Primarily full-time residents

10. Who We Work With

11. RISK ASSESSMENT
PART 2:

12. Why Do A Risk Assessment?
Purpose:
■ Evaluate vulnerability to likely hazards;
■ Prioritize those actions that most effectively
reduce or avoid future loss.
“If I had an hour to solve a problem
I’d spend 55 minutes thinking
about the problem and 5 minutes
thinking about solutions.”
-Albert Einstein

13. METHODOLOGY

14. Sea Level Rise
2050 Sea Level Rise Projections
■ 1.48 FT (Miller, et. al.)
■ Coastal Plain
■ Central Scenario
Two Scenarios
■ Sunny Day - Mean Higher High Water
■ FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas

15. Scenario 1
Sunny Day - Mean Higher High Water
■ The average of the higher high water height of each tidal
day observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch
■ Used local NOAA Tide Stations or NOAA Vertical Datum
(Vdatum) Tool

16. Scenario 1

17. ■ Land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood
(1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard)
■ A* and V* Zones
■ NFIP regulations must be enforced
■ Mandatory purchase of flood insurance
FEMA Mapping
Special Flood Hazard Area

18. FEMA DFIRM
VE
VE
AE
AE
AE
AE
0.2%

19. FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area
Focus of Analysis
■ AE and VE Zones (1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard)
■ Detailed Studies with Base Flood Elevations (BFE)
■ Predominate Flood Hazard Zones in Study Areas
Scenario 2

20. Two Routes of Increased Exposure
■ Inundation Extent
■ Water Depth
Evaluation
Note: Assumed a Linear Relationship
■ For Example, if MHHW = 1 FT in
current day conditions, then
projected MHHW = 2.48 FT in 2050
■ Creates Limitations for Scenario 2

21. Inundation Extent

22. Scenario 2

23. Scenario 2

24. Water Depth

25. ■ Percent of Land Inundated
■ Number of Parcels Impacted
■ Water Depth on each Property
■ Structure Damage
■ Depth Damage Curves
■ Residential vs. Commercial
■ One Story vs. Two Story
■ Basement vs. No Basement
For Each Scenario

26. Depth Damage Curve

27. At approximately 4 FT of
Water Depth, 50% of the
Structure is Damaged!
Depth Damage Curve

28. Refinements
■ First Floor Elevation at Grade
■ Exception – Parcels with Elevation Certificates since Sandy
■ Elevation > Base Condition + SLR
■ One-Story Residential and No Basement
■ Omitted Parcels
■ Less than 10% Inundation
■ Structure not Inundated

29. ■ Link Inundation Extents / Impacted Parcels with Parcel
Tax Assessors Data
■ Land Value
■ Improvement Value / Structure Value
■ Calculated Average Water Depth Across each Parcel
■ Derive Exposure Value for Each Scenario
Financial Exposure

30. Scenario 1
■ Percent of Land Inundated
■ Number of Parcels Impacted
■ Complete loss of the property, both structural and land value
■ “New Normal”
■ Elevated structures
Financial Exposure

31. Scenario 2: 1% Flood Event
■ Percent of Land Inundated
■ Number of Parcels Impacted
■ Water Depth
■ Temporary loss in structural assessment value
■ Elevated Structures
■ Loss of Land Value?
■ Frequency of this 1% flood event in 2050?
Financial Exposure

32. ■ Correlate loss of land and structural value to tax revenue
■ Correlate loss with land cover class
■ What implications does this have?
Financial Exposure

33. RESULTS
PART 3:

34. Little Egg Harbor Township – Current

35. Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR

36. Little Egg Harbor Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

37. ■ 2050 SLR % of acres: 31%
■ 2050 /1% storm % of acres: 34%
The Bottom Line
Little Egg Harbor Township – Parcels
# of Lots
Exposed
# of Acres
Exposed
# of Lots
Exposed
# of Acres
Exposed
Vacant (1) 176 232 366 348
Residential (2) 711 130 4,083 686
Farm (3A) 1 6 1 6
Farm (3B) 0 0 0 0
Commercial (4A) 13 34 54 62
Industrial (4B) 0 0 0 0
Apartment (4C) 0 0 0 0
Public School Property (15A) 0 0 0 0
Public Property (15C) 128 8,679 180 8,795
Church/Charitable (15D) 0 0 5 4
Other Exempt (15F) 3 5 22 7
Total 1,032 9,085 4,711 9,909
2050 SLR 2050 SLR/1% Flood
Property Class (Class Code)

38. Little Egg Harbor Township – Value
The Bottom Line
■ 2050 % of total value: 8%
■ 2050/1% storm % of total value: 32%
Total Exposed Value % of Total Total Exposed Value % of Total
Vacant (1) $14,063,025 11% $35,336,605 28%
Residential (2) $205,212,850 8% $822,161,915 32%
Farm (3A) $35,800 13% $35,800 13%
Farm (3B) $0 0% $0 0%
Commercial (4A) $18,198,200 13% $27,200,103 19%
Industrial (4B) $0 0% $0 0%
Apartment (4C) $0 0% $0 0%
Public School Property (15A) $0 0% $0 0%
Public Property (15C) $20,977,100 19% $30,158,550 28%
Church/Charitable (15D) $0 0% $1,408,502 9%
Other Exempt (15F) $1,480,300 4% $4,750,100 14%
Total $259,967,275 9% $921,051,575 31%
Net Taxable $237,509,875 8% $884,734,423 32%
2050 SLR 2050 SLR/1% @ 100% LV
Property Class

39. Sea Bright Borough - Current

40. Sea Bright Borough - 2050 SLR

41. Sea Bright Borough - 2050/1% Storm

42. # of Exposed
Lots
Exposed
Acres
# of Exposed
Lots
Exposed
Acres
Vacant (1) 38 20 215 61
Residential (2) 176 25 885 86
Commercial (4A) 21 29 61 58
Apartment (4C) 1 1 4 2
Public Property (15C) 3 1 13 10
Church/Charitable (15D) 0 0 3 1
Other Exempt (15F) 1 0 2 1
Total 240 76 1,183 218
Property Class
(Class Code)
2050 SLR 2050 SLR/1% Flood
Sea Bright Borough - Parcels
The Bottom Line
■ 2050 SLR % of acres: 30%
■ 2050 /1% storm % of acres: 87%

43. Total Exposed
Value
% of Total
Value
Total Exposed
Value
% of Total
Value
Vacant (1) $4,873 7% $11,706,029 79%
Residential (2) $2,627,606 8% $224,602,347 61%
Commercial (4A) $1,077,896 36% $43,360,337 84%
Apartment (4C) $208,402 29% $2,269,751 70%
Public Property (15C) $11,225 3% $12,484,382 93%
Church/Charitable (15D) $0 0% $1,537,657 56%
Other Exempt (15F) $205,953 41% $1,026,553 70%
Total $4,135,955 11% $296,987,056 65%
Net Taxable Value $3,918,777 11% $281,938,464 65%
2050 SLR
Property Class
(Class Code)
2050/1% Flood
Sea Bright Borough - Value
The Bottom Line
■ 2050 % of total value: 11%
■ 2050/1% storm % of total value: 65%

44. ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES…

45. Tuckerton Borough - Current

46. Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR

47. Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

48.  Total Exposed Value: $224.4 million
 % of Total Taxable Value: 50%
 % of Total Area: 66%
The Bottom Line
Tuckerton Borough – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

49. Highlands Borough - Current

50. Highlands Borough – 2050 SLR

51. Highlands Borough – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

52.  Total Exposed Value: $195 million
 % of Total Taxable Value: 34%
 % of Total Area: 41%
The Bottom Line
Highlands Borough – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

53. Maurice River Township - Current

54. Maurice River Township – 2050 SLR

55. Maurice River Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

56.  Total Exposed Value: $115 million
 % of Total Taxable Value: 39%
 % of Total Area: 21%
The Bottom Line
Maurice River Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

57. Commercial Township - Current

58. Commercial Township – 2050 SLR

59. Commercial Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

60.  Total Exposed Value: $45.5 million
 % of Total Taxable Value: 15%
 % of Total Area: 34%
The Bottom Line
Commercial Township – 2050 SLR/1% Storm

61. Not Just Our Towns

62. TACKLING RISK – WHO’S DRIVING?
PART 4:

63. Risk
Plan
RegulateSpend
States: Much More Than Bit Players

64. 1. Require state and municipal hmp coordination
2. Set mitigation project/planning priorities
3. Determine how/where CDBG-DR funds are spent
4. Promote regional planning context/set common
redevelopment standards (e.g. freeboard
requirements)
States: Much More Than Bit Players

65. Maryland
“As our climate continues to change and the
seas continue to rise, Maryland’s coastal areas
are highly susceptible to storms, flooding,
hurricanes and other hazards…By providing
funding and technical assistance we are helping
our most vulnerable communities combat the
threat, and build a stronger, resilient
Maryland”
Governor Martin O’Malley

66. Delaware
“The goal of the Sea Level Rise Advisory
committee is to assess Delaware’s vulnerability
to current and future inundation problems that
may be exacerbated by sea level rise and to
develop a set of recommendations for state
agencies, local governments, businesses and
citizens to enable them to adapt programs,
policies, business practices and make informed
decisions.”
Sea Level Rise Advisory Committee

67. New York
“New York is assisting communities to rebuild
better and safer based on community-driven
plans that consider current damage, future
threats to community assets, and the
community’s economic future.”
Guidance for New York Rising

68. New Jersey

69. The Planner’s Role

70. The Age of Innocence is So Over!

71. 1. Can we continue to develop areas at risk?
2. Can we allow areas that suffer repetitive
loss to rebuild in place?
3. Will taxpayers throughout the country be
willing to subsidize risky behavior?
4. How long will the banking and insurance
industries continue to hedge their bets?
The Age of Innocence is So Over!

72. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results
Time for a new approach

73. We’re Done…..Your Turn