DOCSLIB.ORG

Southern Manhattan Coastal Protection Study: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Multi-Purpose Levee (Mpl)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southern Manhattan Coastal Protection Study: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Multi-Purpose Levee (Mpl) SOUTHERN MANHATTAN COASTAL PROTECTION STUDY: EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY OF A MULTI-PURPOSE LEVEE (MPL) MAY 2014 Project Team This report was prepared for the New York City Economic Development Corporation by: ARCADIS U.S., Inc. AKRF, Inc. 27-01 Queens Plaza North 440 Park Avenue South Suite 800 7th Flood Long Island City, NY 11101 New York, NY 10016 FXFOWLE Architects HR&A Advisors, Inc. 22 West 19th Street 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 10011 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Jesse M. Keenan, J.D., LL.M. 800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor Ocean and Coastal Consultants New York, NY 10022 35 Corporate Drive Trumbull, CT 06611 Sive, Paget & Riesel P.C. 460 Park Avenue WXY Studio New York, NY 10022 224 Centre Street 5th Floor New York, NY 10013 May 2014 Southern Manhattan Coastal Protection Study: Evaluating the Feasibility of an MPL Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Context .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Project Goals ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Resiliency for Southern Manhattan ................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Flood Risk ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Vulnerabilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 “A Stronger, More Resilient New York” .................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Multi-Purpose Levees (MPLs) ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 Global Precedents ................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.5.1 The Netherlands .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.5.2 Japan ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.3 Singapore ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 3 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Physical Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Topography ................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Geology ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.4 Bathymetry .................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Neighborhoods and Built Environment ................................................................................................................ 14 3.2.1 Demographics and Real Estate Conditions ................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Existing Neighborhood Density and Land Use .............................................................................................. 17 3.3 Transportation ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 Historical and Cultural Assets ............................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 South Street Seaport Historic District ........................................................................................................... 22 3.5 Other Related Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 22 4 Feasibility Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 4.1 Coastal Protection Options ................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Upland IFPS ................................................................................................................................................... 24 i May 2014 Southern Manhattan Coastal Protection Study: Evaluating the Feasibility of an MPL 4.1.2 Upland Protection ......................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.3 250’ Land Reclamation .................................................................................................................................. 27 4.1.4 250’ Land Reclamation-Platform Hybrid ....................................................................................................... 28 4.1.5 250’ Land Reclamation with Secondary Channel .......................................................................................... 30 4.1.6 500’ Land Reclamation .................................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 Principles and Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 33 4.2.1 Preliminary Urban Design Principles ............................................................................................................. 33 4.2.2 Dimensional and Density Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 Transportation Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.4 Waterfront Integration ................................................................................................................................. 38 4.2.5 Structural Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 38 4.2.6 Project Phasing .............................................................................................................................................. 40 4.2.7 Financial ........................................................................................................................................................ 42 4.3 Evaluation.............................................................................................................................................................. 45 4.3.1 Financial Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 46 4.4 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................. 48 4.4.1 Optimizing the 500’ Land Reclamation Option: Development of the North Park Option ............................ 51 4.5 Additional Considerations ..................................................................................................................................... 58 4.5.1 Hydrodynamic Modeling ............................................................................................................................... 58 4.5.2 Off-site Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 63 5 Implementation Process Framework ............................................................................................................................ 65 5.1 Planning and Design .............................................................................................................................................. 65 5.2 Review and Permitting .......................................................................................................................................... 66 5.3 Project Financing Structures ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Historic Lower Manhattan
    Historic Lower Manhattan To many people Lower Manhattan means financial district, where the large buildings are designed to facilitate the exchange of money. The buildings, streets and open spaces, however, recall events that gave birth to a nation and have helped shape the destiny of western civilization. Places such as St. Paul's Chapel and Federal Hall National Memorial exemplify a number of sites which have been awarded special status by the Federal Government. The sites appearing in this guide are included in the following programs which have given them public recognition and helped to assure their survival. National Park Service Since its inauguration in 1916, the National Park Service has been dedicated to the preservation and management of our country's unique national, historical and recreational areas. The first national park in the world—Yellowstone—has been followed by the addition of over 300 sites in the 50 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. National Park areas near and in Manhattan are: Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site, Fire Island National Seashore, Gateway National Recreation Area, Sagamore Hill National Historic Site, Hamilton Grange National Memorial, and General Grant National Memorial. National Historic Landmarks National Park Service historians study and evaluate historic properties throughout the country. Acting upon their findings the Secretary of the Interior may declare the properties eligible for designation as National National Parks are staffed by Park Rangers who can provide information As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Historic Landmarks. The owner of such a property is offered a certif­ to facilitate your visit to Lower Manhattan.
    [Show full text]
  • SIM9 Eltingville to Greenwich Village Via Hylan Bl
    Bus Timetable SIM9 New York City Transit Eltingville - Greenwich Village Express via F Capodanno Blvd Express Service For accessible subway stations, travel directions and other information: Effective September 5, 2021 Visit www.mta.info or call us at 511 We are introducing a new style to our timetables. These read better on mobile devices and print better on home printers. This is a work in progress — the design will evolve over the coming months. Soon, we'll also have an online timetable viewer with more ways to view timetables. Let us know your thoughts, questions, or suggestions about the new timetables at new.mta.info/timetables-feedback. SIM9 Weekday To Greenwich Village Eltingville Great Kills New Dorp South Beach Arrochar Downtown Downtown Hylan Bl / Hylan Bl / Nelson Hylan Bl / Cannon Fr Capodanno Bl / Lily Pond Av / Mc West St / Carlisle Av Of The Richmond Av Av Bl Atlantic Av Clean Av St Americas / W 14 St 5:00 5:02 5:10 5:21 5:26 5:43 5:55 5:20 5:22 5:30 5:41 5:46 6:03 6:17 5:35 5:37 5:45 5:56 6:01 6:27 6:41 5:50 5:52 6:00 6:13 6:20 6:46 7:00 6:05 6:07 6:16 6:29 6:36 7:02 7:20 6:20 6:22 6:31 6:44 6:51 7:17 7:35 6:35 6:37 6:46 6:59 7:06 7:33 7:51 6:50 6:52 7:01 7:15 7:22 7:49 8:07 7:00 7:03 7:14 7:28 7:35 8:02 8:19 7:10 7:13 7:24 7:38 7:45 8:12 8:29 7:20 7:23 7:34 7:48 7:55 8:22 8:39 7:30 7:33 7:44 7:58 8:05 8:31 8:48 7:40 7:43 7:54 8:08 8:14 8:40 8:57 7:55 7:58 8:09 8:22 8:28 8:54 9:11 8:10 8:12 8:21 8:34 8:40 9:06 9:23 8:30 8:32 8:41 8:54 9:00 9:26 9:43 Bold times denote PM hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert and Anne Dickey House Designation Report
    Landmarks Preservation Commission June 28, 2005, Designation List 365 LP-2166 ROBERT and ANNE DICKEY HOUSE, 67 Greenwich Street (aka 28-30 Trinity Place), Manhattan. Built 1809-10. Landmark Site: Borough of Manhattan Tax Map Block 19, Lot 11. On October 19, 2004, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation as a Landmark of the Robert and Anne Dickey House and the proposed designation of the related Landmark Site (Item No. 2). The hearing was continued to April 21, 2005 (Item No. 1). Both hearings had been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of law. Sixteen people spoke in favor of designation, including representatives of State Assemblyman Sheldon Silver, the Lower Manhattan Emergency Preservation Fund, Municipal Art Society of New York, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, and Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Two of the building’s owners, and five of their representatives, testified against designation. In addition, the Commission received numerous communications in support of designation, including a resolution from Manhattan Community Board 1 and letters from City Councilman Alan J. Gerson, the Northeast Office of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation League of New York State, and architect Robert A.M. Stern. The building had been previously heard by the Commission on October 19, 1965, and November 17, 1965 (LP-0037). Summary The large (nearly 41 by 62 feet), significantly intact Federal style town house at No. 67 Greenwich Street in lower Manhattan was constructed in 1809-10 when this was the most fashionable neighborhood for New York’s social elite and wealthy merchant class.
    [Show full text]
  • Imaging Laurentide Ice Sheet Drainage Into the Deep Sea: Impact on Sediments and Bottom Water
    Imaging Laurentide Ice Sheet Drainage into the Deep Sea: Impact on Sediments and Bottom Water Reinhard Hesse*, Ingo Klaucke, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada William B. F. Ryan, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964-8000 Margo B. Edwards, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 David J. W. Piper, Geological Survey of Canada—Atlantic, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2, Canada NAMOC Study Group† ABSTRACT the western Atlantic, some 5000 to 6000 State-of-the-art sidescan-sonar imagery provides a bird’s-eye view of the giant km from their source. submarine drainage system of the Northwest Atlantic Mid-Ocean Channel Drainage of the ice sheet involved (NAMOC) in the Labrador Sea and reveals the far-reaching effects of drainage of the repeated collapse of the ice dome over Pleistocene Laurentide Ice Sheet into the deep sea. Two large-scale depositional Hudson Bay, releasing vast numbers of ice- systems resulting from this drainage, one mud dominated and the other sand bergs from the Hudson Strait ice stream in dominated, are juxtaposed. The mud-dominated system is associated with the short time spans. The repeat interval was meandering NAMOC, whereas the sand-dominated one forms a giant submarine on the order of 104 yr. These dramatic ice- braid plain, which onlaps the eastern NAMOC levee. This dichotomy is the result of rafting events, named Heinrich events grain-size separation on an enormous scale, induced by ice-margin sifting off the (Broecker et al., 1992), occurred through- Hudson Strait outlet.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Manhattan COASTAL8/1/2016 RESILIENCY 1 1 AGENDA
    FINANCIAL DISTRICT AND BATTERY PARK CITY WORKSHOP NO. 1 : RE ENGAGEMENT JULY 28, 2016, SOUTHBRIDGE TOWERS lower manhattan COASTAL8/1/2016 RESILIENCY 1 1 AGENDA 6:30 – 6:40pm Welcome + Opening Remarks (10 mins) 6:40 – 6:50pm OneNYC: Our Resilient City (10 mins) 6:50 – 7:00pm Project Overview (10 mins) 7:00 – 7:15pm Question and Answer (15 mins) 7:15 – 8:05pm Key Considerations + Small Group Discussions (50 mins) Work Session 1: Coastal Resiliency Infrastructure Types (30 mins) Work Session 2: Community Priorities (20 mins) 8: 05 – 8:25pm Report Back + Questions (20 mins) 8:25 – 8:30pm Next Steps + How to Stay Involved (5 mins) COASTALlower manhattan RESILIENCY 2 AGENDA 6:30 – 6:40pm Welcome + Opening Remarks (10 mins) 6:40 – 6:50pm OneNYC: Our Resilient City (10 mins) 6:50 – 7:00pm Project Overview (10 mins) 7:00 – 7:15pm Question and Answer (15 mins) 7:15 – 8:05pm Key Considerations + Small Group Discussions (50 mins) Work Session 1: Coastal Resiliency Infrastructure Types (30 mins) Work Session 2: Community Priorities (20 mins) 8: 05 – 8:25pm Report Back + Questions (20 mins) 8:25 – 8:30pm Next Steps + How to Stay Involved (5 mins) COASTALlower manhattan RESILIENCY 3 AGENDA 6:30 – 6:40pm Welcome + Opening Remarks (10 mins) 6:40 – 6:50pm OneNYC: Our Resilient City (10 mins) 6:50 – 7:00pm Project Overview (10 mins) 7:00 – 7:15pm Question and Answer (15 mins) 7:15 – 8:05pm Key Considerations + Small Group Discussions (50 mins) Work Session 1: Coastal Resiliency Infrastructure Types (30 mins) Work Session 2: Community Priorities (20 mins) 8: 05 – 8:25pm Report Back + Questions (20 mins) 8:25 – 8:30pm Next Steps + How to Stay Involved (5 mins) COASTALlower manhattan RESILIENCY 4 VISION The Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency (LMCR) Project aims to reduce flood risk due to coastal storms and sea level rise from Manhattan’s Two Bridges neighborhood through Battery Park City.
    [Show full text]
  • Battery Park City Chelsea
    The Stack GREEN LIVING A look at NYC’s Eco-Friendly Residential Buildings 3857 Broadway* From vitamin C showers to circadian rhythm lighting, filtered air and water, green building features 2 28 Units - 38,000 ft are more prevalent than ever. GLUCK+ According to U.S. Green Building Council there are 94 LEED certified ‘New Construction/Major Jeffrey Brown & Kim Frank Renovation’ residential buildings in Manhattan. The featured buildings below are selected to Completed in 2014 highlight 6 of the categories used to score a project; location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and environmental quality. Materials and Resources: The use of modular construction allows for The Lucida precise quality while cutting down on construction waste and reducing the 151 East 85th Street carbon footprint LEED Silver 94 110 Units - 386,000 ft2 LEED Certified Cook + Fox New Construction Buildings in Manhattan Extell Development West 57th Street Completed in 2009 625 West 57th Street* Location and Transportation: Being directly above the 86th Street 709 Units - 861,000 ft2 4-5-6 Station allows for direct public Bjarke Ingels Group transportation; a bike room facilitates The Durst Organization alternative transportation Completed in 2016 Water Efficiency: Rainwater is 345 Meatpacking collected for cooling tower reservoir and irrigation 345 West 14th Street LEED Silver 37 Units - 62,000 ft2 DDG Partners Completed in 2012 Sustainable Sites: Extensive use of green roofs to reduce impervious surfaces & 1,375 ft2 of green screens to help eliminate pollution in storm-water West Chelsea has seen an enormous growth in new residential development, specifically around the High Line elevated park.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Variability of Levees As Measured Using the CPT
    2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, May 2010 Spatial Variability of Levees as Measured Using the CPT R.E.S. Moss Assistant Professor, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo J. C. Hollenback Graduate Researcher, U.C. Berkeley J. Ng Undergraduate Researcher, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo ABSTRACT: The spatial variability of a soil deposit is something that is commonly discussed but difficult to quantify. The heterogeneity as a function of lateral distance can be critical to the design of long engineered structures such as highways, bridges, levees, and other lifelines. This paper presents a methodology for using CPT mea- surements to quantifying the spatial variability of cone tip resistance along a levee in the California Bay Delta. The results, presented in the form of a general relative va- riogram, identify the distance at which the maximum spatial variability is achieved for a given soil strata. This information helps define minimally correlated stretches of levee for proper failure and risk analysis. Presented herein are methods of interpret- ing, calculating, and analyzing CPT data to arrive at the quantified spatial variability with respect to different static and seismic failure modes common to levee systems. 1 INTRODUCTION Spatial variability of engineering properties in soil strata is inherent to the nature of soil. Spatial variability is controlled primarily by the depositional environment where high energy systems usually deposit materials with high spatial variability (e.g. al- luvial gravels) and low energy systems usually deposit materials with low spatial va- riability (e.g. lacustrine clays). This spatial variability is generally taken into account in geotechnical design in a qualitative empirical manner through appropriately spaced borings to assess the changing subsurface conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Wagner Park Battery Park City Authority November 9, 2016
    Wagner Park Battery Park City Authority November 9, 2016 Battery Park City Authority: Wagner Park © 2015 Perkins Eastman Architects DPC Study Objectives • Consider the property with regard to resiliency protection • Improve parkland and facilities for BPC residents Battery Park City Authority: Wagner Park A Unique Place in Battery Park City • BPC’s “Leftover” Space • Newly Improved (Pier A) • A Potential ‘Front Door’ Battery Park City Authority: Wagner Park Resiliency: Battery Park City’s Vulnerability One of the most vulnerable locations in Lower Manhattan Battery Park City Authority: Wagner Park Survey results WHO RESPONDED Of 414 total respondents*: Live in Local Area Work in NYC Visitors Live Battery Visitors to Battery to Battery outside Park City Battery Park Park City Park City NYC City 268 81 80 32 10 *Numbers add to more than 414 due to multiple responses by some respondents Battery Park City Authority: Wagner Park Survey results WHY THEY CAME TO WAGNER PARK PROGRAMMED UNPROGRAMMED ACTIVITIES 42% ACTIVITIES 58% Swedish Mid-Summer Festival 113 Programmed 128 Strolling along the water activities or classes 376 Dance/music 178 performance Dining at Gigino’s 217 279 Passive recreation: sitting, reading, contemplating, 46 socializing, etc. 189 Fishing Active recreation: running, games, martial arts, yoga, etc. Battery Park City Authority: Wagner Park Survey results WHAT THEY LIKE BEST ABOUT WAGNER PARK Programming and Great views retail offerings 197 197 220 344 Quality of the Park It's like being in Cape Cod, environment “ but still NYC” Sitting by the water surrounded by green, you forget you're in the middle of the city! Battery Park City Authority: Wagner“ Park ” Survey results HOW WAGNER PARK COULD BE IMPROVED More shade 14 More/improved 42 Allow dogs seating 20 More food and 31 beverage options 33 More events Being able to walk my dog along the water and sit in the quiet “of the park would be a reason to visit Wagner park more often.
    [Show full text]
  • BPC Parks Rules and Regulations
    Battery Park City Parks Rules and Regulations Section 9003.1. Definitions (a) Battery Park City means the mixed use development consisting of residential and commercial development, public parks property, infrastructure, civic and other facilities located at the southwest area of Manhattan, as defined in the Act, generally bounded by West Street on the east, the Hudson River on the west, Battery Place and Battery Park on the south and the westerly extension of Jay Street on the north. (b) BPCA means the Battery Park City Authority, a public benefit corporation established pursuant to chapter 343 of the Laws of 1968, as amended and set forth in title 12 of the New York Public Authorities Law (the “Act“), or its successors, or assigns; where these rules refer to action by the BPCA, such action shall mean that taken by the president of the BPCA or his or her designee(s). (c) Esplanade means the waterfront esplanade portion of the parks adjacent to the Hudson River, and which, South of the Plaza, consists of two levels, an inland “upper level“ and a “lower level“ closer to the Hudson River. (d) Motor vehicle refers to any automobile, motorcycle, moped, or other vehicle propelled by a motor. (e) Owner or owning refers to any person owning, operating, or having the use or control of an animal, a vehicle or any other personal property. (f) Park, parks or park property signifies any or all of the mapped public parks, waters and land under water, pools, esplanades, playgrounds, recreation centers of, and adjacent to, Battery Park City and all other property, equipment, buildings and facilities, including park streets, related thereto now or hereafter under the jurisdiction, charge or control of ParksCorp.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Documentation of Design Deficiencies Santa Clara River Levee System (Scr-1) 1
    DOCUMENTATION OF DESIGN DEFICIENCIES SANTA CLARA RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM (SCR-1) 1. Project Description and Watershed Characteristics The Santa Clara River Levee (SCR-1) system is located in the city of Oxnard, in Ventura County, California. It is approximately 4.72 miles long, extending along the southeast bank of the Santa Clara River from Highway 101, at its downstream terminus, to the community of Saticoy, at its upstream terminus (see Figure 1). SCR-1 was originally designed in 1958 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to control the Corps’ predicted Standard Project Flood peak discharge of 225,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), a peak emanating from a partially regulated 1,600-square-mile Santa Clara River watershed. The height of SCR-1 varies from approximately 4 feet to 13 feet. The compacted fill embankment that forms SCR-1 has a top width of 18 feet. The levee embankment slopes are 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V), on both the landward side and the riverward side. The riverward side of the embankment has a 1.5- to 2- foot-thick rock revetment, with a concrete facing at and near highway bridges. The rock revetment extends from the top of the embankment to varying depths. The lowest depth of the rock revetment is hereinafter referred to as the “toedown.” Construction of the SCR-1 project was completed in 1961. The levee was constructed adjacent to the active channel of the Santa Clara River. A review of historical aerial photography, dating as far back as 1927, indicates that before construction of the SCR-1, there were numerous locations along the project reach where the primary braid of the Santa Clara River impinged directly on the east and west banks of the river at rather abrupt flow angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Corte Madera
    CORTE MADERA Community Profile: Corte Madera Corte Madera is a primarily residential community IMPACTS AT-A-GLANCE: SCENARIO 6 with several large commercial areas that take advantage of the highway corridor. These 1,500+ living units 9,500+ people commercial areas serve the entire region and include outdoor malls, auto dealerships, restaurants, 994 acres exposed 79 commercial and other local business. In the near-term, 230 16 miles of roads parcels acres could be exposed to sea level rise. By the long-term, 906 acres could be exposed to sea level Storm, tidal, and Corte Madera rise and 994 acres could be exposed with an subsidence impacts Caltrans additional 100-year storm surge. Key vulnerabilities already occur Central Marin PD in Corte Madera include: Corte Madera Fire $1.4 billion worth of CHP Homes along the tributaries to Corte Madera assessed property value; Larkspur-Corte Creek may be vulnerable in the near-term. assets vulnerable; $1.5 Madera School Commercial areas on Paradise Drive may be billion in single family District vulnerable to sea level rise in the near-term, and market value189 HOAs storm surges sooner. Property Owners Segments of the 101 could be vulnerable to seasonal storm surges in the near-term, and sea level rise in the medium to long-terms. Access to the community from the US Highway 101 Map 77. Corte Madera Sea Level Rise and corridor may become increasingly difficult with 100-year Storm Surge Scenarios chronic flooding. Marin Country Day School, Marin Montessori, Cove Elementary, and Neil Cummins elementary could be vulnerable across the scenarios.
    [Show full text]