Hydrologic Feasibility of Storm Surge Barriers Malcolm J. Bowman, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. Presented at Against the Deluge: Storm Surge Barriers to Protect New York City Polytechnic Institute of New York University Brooklyn, New York 3 March 29
Fig. 2: Locator diagram for New York Harbor and environs (upper panel) and Long Island Sound (lower panel).
Fig. 2: Locator diagram for New York Harbor and environs (upper panel) and Long Island Sound (lower panel).
Fig. 3: Surface tidal currents three hr after low water at the Battery during spring tides (US Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1959).
Fig. 4: Surface tidal currents five hr after high water at the Battery during spring tides (US Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1959).
Fig. 5: Surface tidal currents five hr after low water at the Battery during spring tides (US Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1959).
Fig. 6: Hydrographic properties in the lower Hudson estuary during high runoff conditions (upper 6 panels) and: low runoff conditions (lower 6 panels). After Bowman, 197x).
Fig. 7: Tidallyaveraged velocities cm s across the Sandy Hook Rockaway transect, looking upstream (from Kao, 1975).
Fig. 8: Slope line diagram for the East River. Lines join observed tidal heights at various locations along the river at each lunar hour (1 lunar hour = 12.42/12. solar hours). The envelope of the bundle gives the tidal range at each location. From Bowman, 1976).
Fig. 9: The 1-year flood, shown shaded, covers ~ 26 km 2 in the metropolitan region, about half of which could be protected with storm surge barriers (after Gornitz et al., 21).
Fig. 1: The rise in sea level due to climate warming is expected to increase the frequency of flooding, shown here by the reduction in the return period of a 1-year flood of.3 ms (~1 ft) surge elevation. After Gornitz et al., 21.
Fig. 11: SBS 3 bathymetric and topographic elevation map of Metropolitan New York and Long Island (bathymetry based on various sources, topography based on USGS 1 m x 1 m surveys). Data are normalized to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Courtesy R. Flood.
Fig. 12: Partial domain of the ADCIRC ocean circulation model illustrating some of the varying size of the triangular grids according to the detail required to accurately describe the simulate the oceanic, coastal and estuarine hydrodynamics.
Fig. 13. MM5 simulation of extra-tropical storm Floyd approaching the metropolitan region: wind speeds (1 knot barbs), sea level (1 m) pressure and 1 m temperature. From Bowman et al., 25).
1.5 1 model observation Water level,m.5 25 -.5 45 65 85 15.5 Time,hr Fig. 14. NOAA-observed and SBS 3 -simulated water levels at the Battery during the Floyd 1999 extra-tropical storm, 169 Sept.
Water level,m 2 1.5 1.5 -.5.5 observation model 2 4 6 8 1 12 Time,hr Fig. 15: NOAA-observed and SBS 3 -simulated water levels at the Battery during the Christmas 22 extra-tropical storm.
Water level,m 2 1.5 1.5.5 Water level at barrier 1(Perth Amboy) with three barriers operation during Super Floyd inside barrier out side barrier -.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 Time,hr Water level,m Water level at barrier 3(Narrows) with three barriers operation during Super Floyd inside barrier 4 out side barrier 2-2 25 45 65 85 15 125 145-4 Time,hr Water level,m 1.5 1.5.5 Water level at barrier 2(East River) with three barriers operation during Super Floyd inside barrier out side barrier -.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 Time,hr Water level,m Water level at Battery with three barriers operation during Super Floyd 1 25 45 65 85 15 125 145-2 Time,hr Fig. 16. Closing the three barriers at local slack water during Super Floyd lowers the water level inside the barriers to approximately mean sea level.
Water level,m 1.5 1.5.5 Water level at inside of barrier 1 (Perth Amboy) with barriers closed at low water and still water during 22 nor'easter low water still w ater -.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 Time,hr Water level,m 2 1.5 1.5.5 Water level at inside of barrier 2 (East River) with barriers closed at low water and still water during 22 nor'easter low w ater still w ater -.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 Time,hr Water lelvel,m 1.5 1.5.5 Water level at inside of barrier 3 (Narrows) with barriers closed at low water and still wate during 22 nor'easter low w ater still w ater -.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 Time,hr Fig. 17: For the 22 Christmas nor easter storm, closing the barriers at local slack (still) water leads to slightly lower water levels behind the barriers than if they were closed at local low water.
Water level at East River barrier with one barrier operation during December 22 nor'easter Water level,m 3 2.5 2 1.5 1.5 -.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145.5 2 1.5 inside barrier outside barrier Time,hr Water level at Battery with one barrier operation at East River during December 22 nor'easter Fig. 18. With a single East River barrier, the storm surge propagating from Long Island Sound is blocked, but the water elevation west of the barrier nevertheless reaches flood level. 1 Water level,m.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 -.5.5 Time,hr
Additional rise in water level outside barrier.3 Water level difference,m.25.2.15.1.5 y =.2721x -.6847 R 2 =.977 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Station No. Fig. 19. Loaded against the closed East River barrier in the simulated 22 nor easter, the water level on the eastern face of the barrier rose +.27 m than would have occurred had the barrier not been operational during the same storm. This additional rise diminished exponentially with distance from the barrier, dropping by about one-third at Willets Point.
2 1.5 1 Water level,m.5 25 45 65 85 15 125 145 -.5.5 Time,hr Fig. 2: With two barriers closed and the East River open during Super Floyd, the peak water level at the Battery is higher than if all three barriers were open.
5 4 Hurricane Floyd Storm Surge 3 2 New Jersey River Peak Hudson Rainfall Crest feet 1 9/13/1999 : 9/15/1999 : 9/17/1999 : 9/19/1999 : 9/21/1999 : 9/23/1999 : 9/25/1999 : 9/27/1999 : 9/29/1999 : 1/1/1999 : 1/3/1999 : -2-3 Fig. 21. Surge levels at the Battery during extra-tropical storm Floyd. From Bowman et al., 25.
1.5 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 -.5.5 Fig. 22. The SBSS simulation indicates that the water level behind the barriers would have risen about.25 meters due to the inflow from rain-swollen rivers during the 2 hours the barriers were closed in extra-tropical storm Floyd.
.45.4.35.3 Water elevation (meters).25.2.15.1.5 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 4 45 5 Hours of barrier closure Fig. 23. Considering only the upstream storage volume available in the Hudson River, the rainfall runoff crest would raise the water level behind the barriers <.3 m during the 2 hr that the barriers would have been closed for extra-tropical storm Floyd, and less than.4 m in 4 hr.