1.
Status and trends in Jamaica Bay:
Building a Baywide assessment

2.
SCIENCE+
RESILIENCE
INSTITUTE
JAMAICA BAY, NYC
SCIENC
RESILIEN
INSTITU
JAMAICA BAY,
Latest study on Water Quality
LateststudyonEcosystems
Latest study on Flooding
Latest study on Communities

3.
SCIENCE+
RESILIENCE
INSTITUTE
JAMAICA BAY, NYC
SCIENC
RESILIEN
INSTITU
JAMAICA BAY,
Flooding
Ecosystems
Water Quality
Communities
Integrated
Assessment

4.
Integrated Analysis and Planning Project
Demonstrate value of building integrated
analytical tools and interactive approach
to long-term planning under uncertainty

5.
Extensive stakeholder input throughout !

6.
Primary goals and metrics
Improve habitat and
ecosystem function
Reduce flood risk
Improve water
quality
Goal Metric(s)
• Flood exposure (e.g., count of structures flooded)
• Inundation area
• Acreage and extent of designated habitats by
type
• Dissolved oxygen concentration
• Nutrient loads
• Sediment contamination
• Residence time

7.
Bay$Water$Quality
[sECOM 34D$&$
JEM]
Watershed$/$
Sewershed
[Infoworks]
Tidal$
Hydrodynamics$
[sECOM 24D]
Natural$
Ecosystem$Areas$
[VisionMaker
Marsh$(VMM)]
Monthly$Tidal$
Flooding
[sECOM 24D]
Flood$Damage$
and$
Consequences$
Water$quality$
metrics
Land$cover$
metrics
Flood$risk$
metrics
Species$Habitat$
Areas$
[VisionMaker]
Water$Quality$&$
Hydrodynamics$
[ECOMSED]
Required$
module
Primary$
metrics
Future$
module
Legend

8.
Concept 1 – proposed barrier + perimeter
restoration

9.
Concept 2 – Inlet narrowing, perimeter, and max
restoration

10.
10
Scenario Year SLR
(in)
Annual
Temperature
Change
(1985 = 0; °F)
Annual
Rainfall
Change
(%)
Rainfall Analog for Time
Series Modeling
(Gauge-Year)
50th 2041 16 3.9 5
NYCDEP “Future
Central”
JFK-2005
90th 2041 30 5.2 10
NYCDEP “Future
Precautionary”
LGA-2006
50th 2066 29 6.0 10
NYCDEP “Future
Precautionary”
LGA-2006
90th 2066 58 8.3 15
NYCDEP “Future
Precautionary”
LGA-2006
(up-scaled to 15%)
Source: NPCC (2015); compared to 1971-2000 mid-point baseline.
Climate Scenarios

11.
Sea level rise trends
Plot shows NPCC estimates of future SLR with a fitted polynomial for interpolation (NPCC, 2015). Values shown
here are relative to a 2000-2004 baseline; these were later converted to a 2016 baseline for this analysis.
Year 25

12.
Results –
Change
in
Habitat
PENDING FINAL REVIEW
DO NOT CITE OR
DISTRIBUTE

13.
Results – Land Gain/Loss
PENDING FINAL REVIEW. DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE.

14.
Results –
Change
in
Habitat
PENDING FINAL REVIEW
DO NOT CITE OR
DISTRIBUTE

15.
Results –
Assets
Inundated
by Tidal
Flooding
PENDING FINAL REVIEW
DO NOT CITE OR
DISTRIBUTE
Scenario / Concept
Mid High
Without
Action
Concept 1:
Barrier and
Restoration
Concept 2:
Narrowing
and Wetlands
Without
Action
Concept 1:
Barrier and
Restoration
Concept 2:
Narrowing
and Wetlands
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Number of structures
388
270 290
1,816
1,568
1,635
Building Category
Single Family Residential
Multi Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Public

16.
Results – Bottom layer Dissolved Oxygen
PENDING FINAL REVIEW. DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE.

17.
Results – Summary Comparison
PENDING FINAL REVIEW. DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE.

18.
Are the gains in habitat sustainable beyond
Year 2025?

19.
Fagherazzi, Sergio, Giuilio Mariotti, Patricia Wiberg, and Karen McGlathery. “Marsh Collapse Does Not Require Sea Level
Rise.” Oceanography 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 70-77. © 2013 The Oceanography Society, Inc.

20.
Bathymetric change in Jamaica Bay (USACE)
Geomorphological and Archaeological Study of New York and New Jersey Harbor Navigation Channels

21.
Sea level rise trends
Plot shows NPCC estimates of future SLR with a fitted polynomial for interpolation (NPCC, 2015). Values shown
here are relative to a 2000-2004 baseline; these were later converted to a 2016 baseline for this analysis.
Year 25

22.
22
Hapke, C.J., Himmelstoss, E.A., Kratzmann, M., List, J.H., and Thieler, E.R., 2010, National assessment of shoreline change; historical
shoreline change along the New England and Mid-Atlantic coasts: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1118, 57 p.
Regional sediment supply to Jamaica Bay

23.
2016
Sediment supply to Jamaica Bay
PENDING PUBLICATION. DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE.
SCIENCE+
RESILIENCE
INSTITUTE
JAMAICA BAY, NYC
SCIENC
RESILIEN
INSTITU
JAMAICA BAY,
110 MT/yr

24.
Are the gains in flood protection sustainable
beyond Year 2025?

25.
New York
City Panel
on Climate
Change,
2015

26.
Preliminary findings for discussion
1. Both Baywide concepts provide habitat and flood risk
reduction benefits without much impact to water quality
2. The habitat and flood risk reduction benefits are most
effective in the 20 - 30 year timeframe.
3. After that, we do not have a good handle on life cycle and
maintenance costs, potential damages, or feasible habitat
assemblages.
4.We do know that habitat restoration is more
adaptive/adjustable and benefits can be carried over to
longer term

27.
Ø RAND-led study (Rockefeller funded)
Ø Jamaica Bay Observing System (NPS funded)
Ø USGS/Woods Hole data (DOI funded)
Ø Renfro et al SUNY-Stonybrook (NPS funded)
Primary Sources

28.
SCIENCE+
RESILIENCE
INSTITUTE
JAMAICA BAY, NYC
SCIENC
RESILIEN
INSTITU
JAMAICA BAY,
Flooding
Ecosystems
Water Quality
Communities
Integrated
Assessment

29.
Our Vision
A new model of collaboration emerges in
the Jamaica Bay watershed propelling the
City of New York and its local, regional, and
international partners to new standards of
sustainability and resilience.
Our Mission
Our mission is to advance science, support
decisions, and inspire people to support healthy
people and ecosystems.
What We Do
Advance the process and impact of
scientific research.
Support equity and adaptation in decision-
making
Inspire future generations to pursue
sustainability goals.
Our Values
Respect local and experiential knowledge
Harmonize diverse science from basic to usable
Foster inclusive and collaborative exchange
Examine problems and solutions constructively

30.
Preliminary findings for discussion
1. Both scenarios provide habitat and flood risk reduction
benefits without much impact to water quality
2. The habitat and flood risk reduction benefits are most
effective in the 20 - 30 year timeframe.
3. After that, we do not have a good handle on life cycle and
maintenance costs, potential damages, or feasible habitat
assemblages.
4.We do know that habitat restoration is more
adaptive/adjustable and benefits can be carried over to
longer term