Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )
description
Transcript of Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )
![Page 1: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
• Variances• ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act)
• MMRA Mandate = protect agricultural land (allows periodic flooding)
• boundary based on HWL (CGVD28 datum) from 1950s, unique to each marsh body
Tregothic Marsh (Windsor):• Total assessed value = $31,003,300 • yet agricultural land ~0.6%, majority commercial or government infrastructure
Legislative Boundaries
Google Chrome.lnk
![Page 2: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Two animated slides removed to reduce file size.
![Page 3: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Assessment & EngineeringCrest Elevations & Footprints
• ‘critical’ elevation determined for each marsh body (based on HWL & exposure)• ‘construction’ elevation = 2 ft + critical
Storm surge & return periods Relative Sea Level Rise (m) Combined (SLR + surge)Hants HWL Crit. const. 1:10 1:25 1:50 1:100 2025 2055 2085 2100 2055 & 2085 & 2100 &
NS # Name (m) (m) (m) 0.85 0.96 1.04 1.13 0.16 0.45 0.85 1.1 1:100 1:100 1:1008 Grand Pre 7.9 8.2 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.1 8.4 8.8 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.1
41 Habitant 7.9 8.2 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.1 8.4 8.8 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.156 Wellington 7.9 8.2 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.1 8.4 8.8 9.0 9.5 9.9 10.157 New Minas 8.1 8.1 8.7 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.2 8.3 8.6 9.0 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.365 Bishop Beckwith 8.0 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 8.2 8.5 8.9 9.1 9.6 10.0 10.2
• in order to maintain slope, as increase height, must increase footprint
• Original Fundy design: • 1:3 seaward• 1:2 landward
![Page 4: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• 210 m < critical• 3.7% of dyke length• foreshore mean = 220 m
Town of Wolfville
![Page 5: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ErosionAccretion
Dyke toe instabiliity
Erosion of outer and/or inner slope
Piping
Sliding of outer and/or inner slope
Instability of shore protection element
Overflow & wave overtoppinga)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Mechanisms of Dyke Failure
![Page 6: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Assessment & EngineeringErosion & foreshore marsh
Bishop Beckwith
Starrs Point
• foreshore marsh is critical for erosion protection & source of material (borrow pit) for dyke topping to decrease cost
• 1 m water depth – wave dissipation in 80 m
![Page 7: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Assessment & EngineeringLegislative Boundaries • Important to
re-examine marsh body boundary
• In many areas, strong match with historical HWL survey and lidar analysis.
• However, HWL determined from 1940s and did not consider CC
• Extend boundary if minimal development
![Page 8: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Adaptation Options
![Page 9: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Protect
Type of Property Suggested Flooding Frequency Allowance
High-yield agricultural land flooded by freshwater 1:10 High-yield agricultural land flooded by freshwater
but with high investments 1:25
High-yield agricultural land flooded by salt water 1:50 – 1:100 Individual houses 1:50 – 1:100 Complete town 1:500
Big cities, industrial areas essential services (ie: airports railways) 1:1000
Source: Pilarsky, 1998
• hold the line & protect assets• topping requires increase in
base footprint, potentially extend dyke
• source of material (cost)• armouring (toe of dyke or
foreshore)• cost benefit analysis required
![Page 10: Variances ID areas where flood boundaries exceed zoning (e.g. jurisdiction of marsh act )](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062815/5681693e550346895de0bc60/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Dyke heightening (cm)
Cos
t of h
eigh
teni
ng o
r da
mag
e (M
$)
Example of cost assessment for dyke heightening in the Netherlands (van Alphen, 2012)
The economic optimum level of protection is where the sum of investments in dikes and residual damage (continuous line) shows a minimum, i.e. where further increase of dike height doesn’t outweigh the related avoided damage anymore.” (van Alphen, 2012).