rebuild by design - hudson river project · 4.9.2 hoboken green infrastructure strategic plan...

Rebuild by Design - Hudson River Project Feasibility Study Report – FINAL

Original: November 7th, 2016

Final: February 10th, 2017

SUBMITTED BY:

SUBMITTED TO:

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | i

Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

3 Background ................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Need ............................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Purpose of the Feasibility Study ................................................................................................... 16

4 Data Collection and Review .................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Project Datum ................................................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Existing Data Inventory ................................................................................................................. 17

4.3 History of Study Area .................................................................................................................... 20

4.4 Flooding Conditions in the Study Area ........................................................................................ 21

4.5 Topography and Bathymetry Data ............................................................................................... 26

4.6 Geotechnical Data ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.7 Utilities Data ................................................................................................................................. 26

4.8 Environmental Data ..................................................................................................................... 28

4.9 Key Past Studies/Reports ............................................................................................................. 28

4.9.1 Rebuild by Design “Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge” Proposal ............................................ 28

4.9.2 Hoboken Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan ..................................................................... 32

4.9.3 Hoboken Master Plan (2004) and Reexamination Report (2010) ...................................... 33

4.9.4 Hoboken Strategic Recovery Planning Report (2014) ......................................................... 34

4.9.5 Waterfront Structures Inspection Report (2011) ................................................................. 36

4.9.6 Hoboken Yard Redevelopment Plan Report (2014) ............................................................ 38

4.10 Base Map ....................................................................................................................................... 40

5 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................. 41

5.1 Topography and Bathymetry ........................................................................................................ 43

5.2 Waterfront Condition Assessment ............................................................................................... 44

5.3 Geotechnical Conditions Assessment .......................................................................................... 47

5.3.1 Subsurface Conditions .......................................................................................................... 47

5.4 Utilities .......................................................................................................................................... 58

5.5 Critical Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 61

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | ii

5.6 On-going Projects and Proposed Redevelopment Plans ............................................................. 64

5.6.1 Ongoing Projects ................................................................................................................... 64

5.6.2 Proposed Redevelopment Plans ........................................................................................... 65

5.7 Urban Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 69

5.7.1 Transportation Network and Facilities ................................................................................. 69

5.7.2 Socio Economics ..................................................................................................................... 71

5.7.3 Building Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 73

5.7.4 Streetscape Characteristics ................................................................................................... 80

5.7.5 Open Space ............................................................................................................................ 80

5.8 Environmental Conditions ........................................................................................................... 83

5.9 No-Action Alternative Development ............................................................................................ 83

5.10 Flood Risk Vulnerability Assessment in NAA .............................................................................. 86

6 Concept Development and Screening ................................................................................ 89

6.1 Concept Development ................................................................................................................... 90

6.1.1 Site Suitability Assessment for “Resist” Concepts .............................................................. 95

6.1.2 Site Suitability Assessment for “Delay, Store, Discharge” Concepts .................................. 101

6.1.3 Five Concepts ........................................................................................................................ 112

6.2 Concept Screening ....................................................................................................................... 118

6.2.1 Concept Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ........................................................................... 120

6.2.2 Concept Screening Results .................................................................................................. 123

6.2.3 Concept Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................. 127

6.2.4 Additional Concepts Evaluation ......................................................................................... 128

6.2.5 Concepts Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................................................. 131

6.3 Selected Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 132

6.3.1 “Resist” Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 132

6.3.2 “Delay, Store, Discharge” Alternative ................................................................................. 142

7 Alternative Analysis .............................................................................................................. 143

7.1 Methodology to Evaluate “Resist” Alternatives ....................................................................... 143

7.1.1 Design Flood Elevation ....................................................................................................... 144

7.1.2 Structural and Geotechnical Basis of Design ..................................................................... 146

7.1.3 Urban Design and Landscape Treatments ......................................................................... 169

7.1.4 Feasibility Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................ 176

7.1.5 Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 178

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | iii

7.1.6 Benefit-Cost Ratio ............................................................................................................... 184

7.2 Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ 189


7.2.2 Coastal Flood Risk Reduction Benefits ................................................................................ 191

7.2.3 Structural and Geotechnical Assessment ........................................................................... 195

7.2.4 Urban Design ....................................................................................................................... 196

7.2.5 Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... 200

7.2.6 Benefit – Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................ 204

7.2.7 Feasibility Assessment ........................................................................................................ 204

7.3 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 207


7.3.2 Coastal Flood Risk Reduction Benefits ............................................................................... 209


7.3.4 Urban Design ....................................................................................................................... 213

7.3.5 Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 215


7.3.7 Feasibility Assessment ......................................................................................................... 217

7.4 Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................................ 219


7.4.2 Coastal Flood Risk Reduction Benefits ............................................................................... 221


7.4.4 Urban Design ....................................................................................................................... 224

7.4.5 Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 227


7.4.7 Feasibility Assessment ........................................................................................................ 229

7.5 Delay, Store, Discharge (DSD) Alternative ................................................................................ 231

7.5.1 Methodology for Evaluation of DSD Alternative ............................................................... 232

7.5.2 Stormwater Flood Risk Reduction Benefits ....................................................................... 235

7.5.3 Conceptual Stormwater Management and Landscape Design .......................................... 236

7.5.4 Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 261

7.5.5 Benefit – Cost Analysis (BCA) ............................................................................................ 262

8 Recommendation for the Preferred Alternative ........................................................... 264

8.1 Development and Comparison of Comprehensive Master Plan Alternatives .......................... 264

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | iv

8.2 Recommended Preferred Alternative for Design and Construction ......................................... 269

8.3 Design Considerations for the Recommended Preferred “Resist” Alternative ....................... 270

9 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................ 291

10 References ................................................................................................................................ 296

Appendix A – Site Photographs ...............................................................................................................

Appendix B – Base Maps ..........................................................................................................................

Appendix C – Geotechnical Data .............................................................................................................

Appendix D – Existing Conditions Waterfront Inspections Report .......................................................

Appendix E – NHSA Sewer Map .............................................................................................................

Appendix F – Concept Development and ROW Green/Gray Infrastructure Data ................................

Appendix G – Technical Memo to Jersey City ........................................................................................

Appendix H – Coastal Design Flood Elevation Calculations ..................................................................

Appendix I – Structural Design Calculations ..........................................................................................

Appendix J – Geotechnical Design Calculations .....................................................................................

Appendix K – “Resist” Toolkit .................................................................................................................

Appendix L – Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................

Appendix M – Benefit Cost Analysis .......................................................................................................

Appendix N – DSD Alternative Stormwater Calculations ......................................................................

Appendix O – Delay, Store, Discharge (DSD) Materials Produced by SCAPE and Dewberry ..............

Appendix P – Memos to NJ Transit, Hartz Mountain, and City of Hoboken ........................................

Appendix Q – Conceptual Design Drawing Package ..............................................................................

Appendix R – Construction Staging ........................................................................................................

Appendix S – List of Unprotected Buildings ...........................................................................................

Appendix T – Working Drafts of OMA/SCAPE/DEWBERRY Presentations to Executive Steering Committee Working Group ......................................................................................................................

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | v

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Dewberry Team Roles ............................................................................................................ 8

Table 4-1. Summary of Data Inventory ................................................................................................ 18

Table 5-1. Photograph Location and Description ................................................................................ 41

Table 5-2. Inspection Findings ........................................................................................................... 45

Table 5-3. Field Permeability Test Results .......................................................................................... 57

Table 5-4. FEMA Critical Facilities within the Study Area ................................................................. 62

Table 5-5. Modes of Transportation Available within the Study Area ............................................... 69

Table 5-6. Population Characteristics of the Study Area ..................................................................... 71

Table 5-7. Parks and Open Space ......................................................................................................... 82

Table 6-1. Multi-disciplinary Team Assessment to Develop Concept Alignments and Intervention Types ..................................................................................................................................................... 96

Table 6-2. Location of the Final Potential Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites with Storage Volume 105

Table 6-3. Evaluation of Concepts using Screening Criteria ............................................................ 124

Table 7-1. Coastal Design Flood Elevation Scenario Cases ............................................................... 144

Table 7-2. NOAA’s Sea-Level Rise for Year 2075 .............................................................................. 146

Table 7-3. Summary of Barrier Structure Seepage Analyses ............................................................ 154

Table 7-4. Summary of Material Properties for Seepage & Stability Analyses of NJ Transit Embankments ...................................................................................................................................... 157

Table 7-5. Summary of NJ Transit Embankment Seepage & Stability Analyses Results ............... 159

Table 7-6. Feasibility Assessment Criteria and Metrics ..................................................................... 177

Table 7-7. Assumed Unit Prices for Flood Barrier’s Superstructure Cost Estimate ......................... 179

Table 7-8. Assumed Unit Prices for Rolling Gate Cost Estimate ....................................................... 181

Table 7-9. Total Social Benefits in Millions $ .................................................................................... 188

Table 7-10. Design Flood Elevation for various reaches along Alternative 1 .................................... 191

Table 7-11. Flood Risk Reduction Benefits from Alternative 1 (Waterfront) ................................... 195

Table 7-12. Potential Areas for Parks and/or Amenities in Alternative 1 ......................................... 202

Table 7-13. Summary of Cost Estimates for Alternative 1 ................................................................. 203

Table 7-14. Benefit-Cost Ratio for Alternative 1 ................................................................................ 204

Table 7-15. Evaluation of Feasibility Assessment Criteria’s for Alternative 1 .................................. 206

Table 7-16. Design Flood Elevation for various reaches along Alternative 2 ................................... 209

Table 7-17. Flood Risk Reduction Benefits from Alternative 2 (15th Street)..................................... 212

Table 7-18. Potential Areas for Parks and/or Amenities in Alternative 2 ........................................ 215

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | vi

Table 7-19. Summary of Cost Estimates for Alternative 2 ................................................................ 216

Table 7-20. Benefit-Cost Ratio for Alternative 2 ................................................................................ 217

Table 7-21. Evaluation of Feasibility Assessment Criteria’s for Alternative 2 .................................. 218

Table 7-22. Design Flood Elevation for various reaches along Alternative 3 ................................... 221

Table 7-23. Flood Risk Reduction Benefits from Alternative 3 (Alleyway) ...................................... 224

Table 7-24. Potential Areas for Parks and/or Amenities in Alternative 3 ........................................ 227

Table 7-25. Summary of Cost Estimates for Alternative 3 ................................................................ 228

Table 7-26. Benefit-Cost Analysis for Alternative 3 .......................................................................... 229

Table 7-27. Evaluation of Feasibility Assessment Criteria’s for Alternative 3 ................................. 230

Table 7-28. Summary of Precedent Park Costs ................................................................................. 234

Table 7-29. Comparison of Flooded Areas in NAA and DSD Alternative ........................................ 235

Table 7-30. Summary of Total Project Costs for the DSD Alternative ............................................. 261

Table 7-31. Summary of Total Project Costs for the BASF site ......................................................... 261

Table 7-32. Summary of Total Project Costs for the Block 10 Site ................................................... 261

Table 7-33. Summary of Total Project Costs for the NJ Transit site ................................................ 262

Table 7-34. Summary of Total Project Costs for the ROW Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites .......... 262

Table 7-35. BCR Calculations in Mean High Tide Conditions for DSD Alternative (Millions $) .... 263

Table 7-36. BCR Calculations in Mean Low Tide Conditions for DSD Alternative (Millions $) ..... 263

Table 8-1. Summary of the Three Comprehensive Master Plan Alternatives .................................. 264

Table 8-2. Definition of Metrics and Values ...................................................................................... 267

Table 8-3. Alternatives Analysis Matrix ............................................................................................ 268

Table 9-1. Summary of Preferred “Resist” Alternative Quantities ................................................... 293

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Initial Five Concepts with “Resist” and DSD Components ................................................. 5

Figure 1-2. Conceptual Master Plan Alternative with the Recommended “Resist” Alternative .......... 6

Figure 2-1. Project Study Area Boundary Map ...................................................................................... 9

Figure 2-2. Project Study Area Boundary Map over Aerial Imagery .................................................. 10

Figure 3-1. Rebuild by Design Competition Vision Components ...................................................... 12

Figure 4-1. Historical Map from Year 1881 of the Study Area ............................................................ 20

Figure 4-2. Preliminary 2015 FEMA Floodplain Map of the Study Area ........................................... 23

Figure 4-3. Map of Typical Hot Spot Rainfall Flooded Areas within NHSA Sewersheds .................. 25

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | vii

Figure 4-4. Map Showing Spatial Location of Various Sources of Topography and Bathymetry ..... 27

Figure 4-5. Map Showing the Proposed Comprehensive Water Strategy for City of Hoboken from Rebuild by Design Competion ............................................................................................................. 29

Figure 4-6. Map Showing the Proposed “Resist” Alignment Strategy from Rebuild by Design Competion............................................................................................................................................. 30

Figure 4-7. Map showing the Proposed “Delay” Strategy fom Rebuild by Design Competion ......... 30

Figure 4-8. Map Showing the Proposed “Store” Strategy from Rebuild by Design Competion ........ 31

Figure 4-9. Map showing the Proposed “Discharge” Strategy fom Rebuild by Design Competion .. 31

Figure 4-10. Map of Three Zones Identified in the Green Infrastructure Strategic Plan .................. 33

Figure 4-11. Waterfront Inspection Location Map in the Southern Area of Hoboken ...................... 36

Figure 4-12. Waterfront Inspection Location Map in Northern Area of Hoboken ............................ 37

Figure 5-1. Study Area Photograph Map ............................................................................................. 42

Figure 5-2. Study Area Topography and Bathymetry ......................................................................... 43

Figure 5-3. Waterfront Structure Inspection Plan .............................................................................. 46

Figure 5-4. Surface Geology Map ....................................................................................................... 49

Figure 5-5. Bedrock Geology Map ....................................................................................................... 50

Figure 5-6. Geotechnical Locations Map ............................................................................................ 52

Figure 5-7. Groundwater Table Depth below Ground Surface ........................................................... 55

Figure 5-8. Groundwater Table Elevation ........................................................................................... 56

Figure 5-9. NHSA Sewersheds ............................................................................................................. 59

Figure 5-10. NHSA Drainage Network ................................................................................................ 60

Figure 5-11. Critical Facilities Map ...................................................................................................... 63

Figure 5-12. Proposed Redevelopment Boundaries ............................................................................ 68

Figure 5-13. Transportation Routes within Study Area ...................................................................... 70

Figure 5-14. Population Distribution within the Study Area .............................................................. 72

Figure 5-15. Building Characteristics (Study Area North – 1 of 3) ..................................................... 74

Figure 5-16. Building Characteristics (Study Area North – 2 of 3) .................................................... 75

Figure 5-17. Building Characteristics (Study Area North – 3 of 3) ..................................................... 76

Figure 5-18. Building Characteristics (Study Area South – 1 of 3) ..................................................... 77

Figure 5-19. Building Characteristics (Study Area South – 2 of 3) ..................................................... 78

Figure 5-20. Building Characteristics (Study Area South – 3 of 3) .................................................... 79

Figure 5-21. Parks and Open Space Map ............................................................................................. 81

Figure 5-22. Projects included in the “Resist” No-Action Alternative .............................................. 84

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | viii

Figure 5-23. Projects Included in the “DSD” No-Action Alternative ................................................. 85

Figure 5-24. Flood Inundation and Maximum Water Depth in the Study Area during 10% (10-year), 2% (50-year), and 1% (100-year) Annual Chance Coastal Storm Surge Events ................................ 87

Figure 5-25. Flood Inundation Areas from 5-Year 24-hour Rainfall Event in No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................................................... 88

Figure 6-1. Pathways for intrusion of the 1% Annual-Chance-Coastal Storm Surge ........................ 89

Figure 6-2. Schematic showing Various Combinations of “Resist” Alignment Segments and “DSD” Locations and Potential Intervention Types ....................................................................................... 91

Figure 6-3. Schematic showing Various Combinations of “Resist” Alignment Segment and Interventions ........................................................................................................................................ 92

Figure 6-4. Schematic showing Various Combinations of “DSD” Interventions and Scale .............. 93

Figure 6-5. Illustration Concept Sketch of Alignment and Intervention Combination in North Portion of the Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 97

Figure 6-6. Illustration Concept Sketch of Alignment and Intervention Combination in South Portion of the Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 98

Figure 6-7. Initial Five Concepts for “Resist” Alignment ............................................................... 100

Figure 6-8. Location of Potential Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites Identified During Site Walkthrough ....................................................................................................................................... 103

Figure 6-9. Location of Final Potential Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites after Screening and Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 104

Figure 6-10. Typical Section of Stormwater Management Retrofit in Existing Parks and Recreational Areas ................................................................................................................................................... 108

…………………………………….110 Figure 6-11a. Overall Conceptual DSD Strategy for the Study Area

Figure 6-11b. DSD Concept Level Schematic Designs .......................................................................111

Figure 6-12. Schematics showing “Resist” Alignment for Concept A .............................................. 113

Figure 6-13. Schematics showing “Resist” Alignment for Concept B .............................................. 114

Figure 6-14. Schematics showing “Resist” Alignment for Concept C .............................................. 116

Figure 6-15. Schematics showing “Resist” Alignment for Concept D .............................................. 117

Figure 6-16. Schematics showing “Resist” Alignment for Concept E .............................................. 119

Figure 6-17. Map showing Additional “Resist” Concept Alignments ............................................. 130

Figure 6-18. Initial Alignment of the Three “Resist” Alternatives .................................................. 133

Figure 6-19. Proposed Preliminary Alignment for Alternative 3 ...................................................... 134

Figure 6-20. Comparison of the Flood Inundation and Maximum Water Depth in the Study Area during a 10-percent-annual-chance (10-year) Annual Chance Coastal Storm Surge Event .......... 136

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | ix

Figure 6-21. Difference Plots for the 10-percent-annual-chance (10-year) Annual Chance Coastal Surge Event .......................................................................................................................................... 137

Figure 6-22. Location of the Three Additional Components (Shown in Green Boxes) for Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 138

Figure 6-23. Plan showing Alignments for the Final Three “Resist” Alternatives ......................... 139

Figure 6-24. Map showing Components in the DSD Alternative ..................................................... 142

Figure 7-1. Wave Runup Heights on Vertical Walls .......................................................................... 145

Figure 7-2. Map showing Flood Barrier Heights along various Alternatives used for Structural and Geotechnical Design Calculations for North Portion ........................................................................ 150

Figure 7-3. Map showing Flood Barrier Heights along various Alternatives used for Structural and Geotechnical Design Calculations for South Portion ......................................................................... 151

Figure 7-4. “Resist” Barrier Structure without Seepage Cutoff Condition in Southern Study Area 155

Figure 7-5. “Resist” Barrier Structure with Seepage Cutoff Condition in Southern Study Area ...... 155

Figure 7-6. “Resist” Barrier Structure without Seepage Cutoff Condition in Northern Study Area 156

Figure 7-7.Resist Barrier Structure with Seepage Cutoff Condition in Northern Study Area ......... 156

Figure 7-8. Map showing locations of Existing NJ Transit’s Rail Embankment as part of “Resist” alternatives ......................................................................................................................................... 158

Figure 7-9. Seepage Analysis without Underground Seepage Barrier through NJ Transit’s embankment during a 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Condition .................................... 159

Figure 7-10. Seepage Analysis with Underground Seepage Barrier through NJ Transit’s embankment during a 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Condition ........................................................... 160

Figure 7-11. Seepage Analysis without Underground Seepage Barrier through NJ Transit’s embankment during a 0.2-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Condition ................................. 160

Figure 7-12. Seepage Analysis with Underground Seepage Barrier through NJ Transit’s embankment during a 0.2-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Condition ........................................................ 161

Figure 7-13.NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis under No Storm Condition ...... 162

Figure 7-14. NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis Result under the 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Condition ........................................................................................................ 163

Figure 7-15. NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis Result under the 0.2-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Condition ........................................................................................... 164

Figure 7-16.NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis Result with 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge under Rapid Drawdown Condition ..................................................... 165

Figure 7-17.NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis Result with 0.2-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge under Rapid Drawdown Condition ..................................................... 166

Figure 7-18.NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis Result with the 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge and Underground Seepage Barrier Condition ..................................... 167

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | x

Figure 7-19.NJ Transit Railroad Embankment Stability Analysis Result with 0.2-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge and Underground Seepage Barrier Condition .................................... 168

Figure 7-20. Guiding Principles for Development of “Resist” Toolkit ........................................... 170

Figure 7-21. Illustration of Morph with Context Principle ............................................................... 170

Figure 7-22. Illustration showing Texture Principle .......................................................................... 171

Figure 7-23. Illustration showing Color Principle .............................................................................. 171

Figure 7-24. Illustration showing Activation Principle ...................................................................... 172

Figure 7-25. Illustration of Planting Schemes for “Resist” Barrier Structures ................................. 173

Figure 7-26. Illustration of Identity Principle .................................................................................... 174

Figure 7-27. Urban Design Zones within the Study Area for all “Resist” Alternatives ................... 175

Figure 7-28. Schematics showing Three Options for Harborside Park in Urban Design Zone 2 ..... 176

Figure 7-29. Typical Stem Wall Section used for Cost Estimates ..................................................... 180

Figure 7-30. Typical Rolling Gate Section used for Cost Estimates ................................................. 180

Figure 7-31. Typical PATH Tube Transfer Structure used for Cost Estimate .................................. 183

Figure 7-32. Breakdown of the Alternative 1’s “Resist” Alignment by Reaches for DFE Calculation ............................................................................................................................................................. 190

Figure 7-33. Spatial Plot Showing Maximum Flood Depths and Inundation Extents for the 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge Event with Alternative 1 (Waterfront) ................................... 193

Figure 7-34. Difference in Maximum Water Depths between NAA and Alternative 1 for 1-percent-annual-chance..................................................................................................................................... 194

Figure 7-35. Urban Design showing Schematics Plan and Collage for Proposed Lincoln Harbor Ferry as part of Alternative 1 “Resist” alignment ....................................................................................... 197

Figure 7-36. Urban Design showing Schematics Plan and Collage for Proposed Weehawken Park Space as part of Alternative 1 “Resist” alignment ............................................................................. 197

Figure 7-37. Urban Design showing Schematics Plan and Collage for Proposed Promenade at Tea House Building as part of Alternative 1 “Resist” alignment ............................................................ 198

Figure 7-38. Urban Design showing Schematics Plan and Collage for Proposed Greenway at Independence Court Waterfront as part of Alternative 1 “Resist” alignment ................................ 198

Figure 7-39. Urban Design showing Schematics Plan and Collage for proposed Maxwell Place Park as part of Alternative 1 “Resist” alignment ...................................................................................... 199

Figure 7-40. Urban Design showing Schematics Plan and Collage for proposed promenade for South Waterfront as part of Alternative 1 “Resist” alignment ................................................................... 199


Figure 7-42. Spatial Plot Showing Maximum Flood Depths and Inundation Extents for the 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge Event with Alternative 2 (15th Street) ..................................... 210

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | xi

Figure 7-43. Difference in Maximum Water Depths between NAA and Alternative 2 for 1-percent-annual-chance Storm Surge Event in Northern and Southern Portions of Study Area ................... 211

Figure 7-44. Aerial View of the 15th Street Alignment in North Hoboken ........................................ 213

Figure 7-45. Urban Design Planning and Collage of the 15th Street “Resist” Structure for Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 214

Figure 7-46. Urban Design Planning and Collage of the Washington Street “Resist” Structure for Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 214


Figure 7-48. Spatial Plot Showing Maximum Flood Depths and Inundation Extents for the 1-percent-annual-chance Coastal Storm Surge Event with Alternative 3 (Alleyway) ...................................... 222

Figure 7-49. Difference in Maximum Water Depths between NAA and Alternative 3 for 1-percent-annual-chance..................................................................................................................................... 223

Figure 7-50. Aerial view of the Alleyway Alignment in North Hoboken .......................................... 225

Figure 7-51. Urban Design Planning and Collage of the Garden Street “Resist” Structure for Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 226

Figure 7-52. Urban Design Planning and Collage of West Alleyway “Resist” Structure for Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 226

Figure 7-53. Urban Design Planning and Collage of East Alleyway “Resist” Structure for Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 226

Figure 7-54. Proposed DSD Alternative Components ....................................................................... 231

Figure 7-55. Site Plan of Proposed Stormwater Management Facility at BASF Site ....................... 238

Figure 7-56. Conceptual Schematic Design of the BASF site as Destination Park .......................... 240

Figure 7-57. Conceptual Schematic Design of the BASF Site as Recreational Park ......................... 241

Figure 7-58. Conceptual Schematic Design of the BASF site as an Eco/Education Park ................ 242

Figure 7-59. Typical Section of the Proposed Stormwater Management Facility at the BASF site . 243

Figure 7-60. Site Plan of Proposed Stormwater Management facility at NJ Transit’s site ............. 245

Figure 7-61. Conceptual Schematic Design of NJ Transit Site with Active Recreation Option ....... 247

Figure 7-62. Conceptual Schematic Design of NJ Transit Site with Passive Recreation Option .... 248

Figure 7-63. Site Plan for Proposed Stormwater Management Facility at Block 10 site ................. 250

Figure 7-64. Conceptual Schematic Design of Block Site with Active Recreation Option ............... 252

Figure 7-65. Conceptual Schematic Design of Block Site with Passive Recreation Option ............. 253

Figure 7-66. Typical Section of the Proposed Stormwater Management Facility at the Block 10 site ............................................................................................................................................................. 254

Figure 7-67. Spatial Locations of 61 ROW Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites ................................... 256

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | xii

Figure 7-68. Right of Way Green/Gray Infrastructure during Normal and Rainfall Conditions.... 257

Figure 7-69. Potential Options for Amenities in ROW Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites with Wide Sidewalk .............................................................................................................................................. 259

Figure 7-70. Potential Options for Amenities in ROW Green/Gray Infrastructure Sites with Narrow Sidewalk .............................................................................................................................................. 260

Figure 8-1. Map showing Three Comprehensive Master Plan Alternatives ..................................... 265

Figure 8-2. Recommended Preferred “Resist” Alternative ................................................................ 271

Figure 8-3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Cross Section of Proposed Earthen Berm in Weehawken Portion of Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 272

Figure 8-4 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Cross Section of 19th Street NJ Transit Light Rail Crossing in Northern Portion of the Study Area ................................................................................................... 273

Figure 8-5 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collages along NJ Transit Light Rail Property near Harbor Boulevard in Northern Portion of the Study Area ............................................................................. 274

Figure 8-6 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collages of “Resist” Barrier near Cove Park in the Northern Portion of the Study Area ................................................................................................................... 275

Figure 8-7 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collage of Proposed Cove Park with “Resist” Barrier located in the Northern Portion of the Study Area ............................................................... 276

Figure 8-8 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, Collage, and Cross Section along Garden Street in the Northern Portion of the Study Area ............................................................................................ 277

Figure 8-9 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, Collage, and Cross Section along Alleyway between Garden and Bloomfield Streets in the Northern Portion of the Study Area .................................... 278

Figure 8-10 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, Collage, and Cross Section along Alleyway between Bloomfield and Washington Streets in Northern Portion of the Study Area ................................... 279

Figure 8-11 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collages along Washington Street between Alleyway and 14th Street in the Northern Portion of the Study Area ................................................ 280

Figure 8-12 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, Collage, and Cross Section along Washington Street between 14th and 13th Streets in the Northern Portion of the Study Area .............................. 281

Figure 8-13 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, Collage, and Cross Section along Washington Street between Newark St. and Observer Highway in the Southern Portion of the Study Area ..... 282

Figure 8-14 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, Collage, and Cross Section of Observer Highway Crossing in the Southern Portion of the Stud yArea ......................................................................... 283

Figure 8-15 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collages along Observer Highway Parking Lot in Southern Portion of Study Area ..................................................................................................... 284

Figure 8-16 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collages along Observer Highway and NJ Transit Property in Southern Portion of Study Area ......................................................................... 285

Figure 8-17 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Gate Detail of Marin Boulevard Crossing in Southern Portion of Study Area ......................................................................................................... 286

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Table of Contents | xiii

Figure 8-18 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Gate Detail of NJ Transit Yard Entrances in Southern Portion of the Study Area ................................................................................................... 287

Figure 8-19 Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Cross Sections of Grove Street Crossing in the Southern Portion of the Study Area ................................................................................................... 288

Figure 8-20. Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Cross Section of Jersey Avenue Crossing in the Southern Portion of Study Area ................................................................................................... 289

Figure 8-21. Alternative 3 Conceptual Plan, Photo, and Collages of NJ Transit Yard near Jersey Avenue in Southern Portion of Study Area ....................................................................................... 290

Figure 9 1. Recommended Preferred “Resist” Alternative …………..……………………………………..……292

NJDEP | Rebuild by Design – Hudson River Feasibility Study | Executive Summary | 1

1 Executive Summary

In order to address the New York and New Jersey region’s vulnerability to floods and need for increased

resiliency, which was made even more apparent by Hurricane Sandy, the U.S Department of Housing and

Urban Design (HUD) launched the Rebuild by Design (RBD) competition in 2013 inviting communities to craft

pioneering resiliency solutions. In New Jersey, the municipalities of Hoboken, Weehawken, and Jersey City

were inundated by flood waters during Hurricane Sandy. During the course of the RBD competition, a

comprehensive urban water strategy proposal was developed for the Hoboken and adjacent areas of Jersey City

and Weehawken that included hard infrastructure and soft landscape for coastal defense (Resist), policy

recommendations, guidelines and urban infrastructure to slow stormwater runoff (Delay), green and grey

infrastructure improvements to allow for greater storage of excess rainwater (Store), and water pumps and

alternative routes to support drainage (Discharge). This proposal was selected in the first round of RBD grants

and HUD has awarded $230 million to the State of New Jersey for the “Hudson River Project: Resist, Delay,

Store, Discharge” (the Project). The authorizing legislation established a September 2022 deadline for project

completion and anticipated that most of the available funding will be allocated to support design and

construction of “Resist” structures to reduce the flood risk from coastal storm surge within the project area. If

funds remain after construction of the “Resist” barriers, then Delay, Store, Discharge (DSD) aspects of the

Project may be funded. The scope of this Feasibility Study addresses the entire Project by considering the

resiliency improvement concepts and visions proposed in the RBD competition and further developed through

public outreach sessions performed in conjunction with a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review for the project. . It should be noted that the DEIS provides

further detail relative to the public process, concept and alternative development approach and determination

of the preferred alternative. The goal of the feasibility study is to develop a comprehensive master plan solution

to reduce flood risk from coastal storm surge and rainfall events with recommendation for a feasible and a

balanced “Resist” barrier solution that is acceptable to the community and within the available HUD funds.

The study area, which encompasses the City of Hoboken and the southern portion of Weehawken (Lincoln

Harbor area) and the northern portion of Jersey City immediately adjacent to New Jersey Transit Hoboken

Terminal, is vulnerable to two interconnected types of flooding: coastal flooding (from storm surges and tidal

influence) and systemic inland flooding (rainfall) which can occur during heavy rainfall events coupled with

mean high tide. These flooding problems are attributed to several factors, including naturally low topography,

particularly in interior areas; proximity to waterways; impervious surface coverage and associated runoff; old

sewer infrastructure with interconnected storm and sanitary sewer lines and insufficient discharge capability

particularly during mean high tide. The total study area including portions of Hudson River is approximately

1,250 acres out of which land covers 1,020 acres. Approximately 16,800 parcels (or, approximately 745 acres

of land or 73% of the overall land study area) is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

2015 preliminary 1-percent annual-chance coastal floodplain also known as the 100-year floodplain. The 1-


percent-annual-chance flood is the flood level that has a 1 in 100 chance of being reached or exceeded in any

given year. In addition, systemic inland flooding associated with rainfall tends to be more localized to inland

areas of lower elevation, but happens with much greater frequency than coastal surges. The systemic inland

flooding typically occurs when high volumes of water are brought into the storm-sewer system from rainfall

events which coincide with an approaching high tide and/or storm surge.

The feasibility study methodology is broken down into the following five steps –

Step 1 – Data collection and analysis of existing conditions within the study area

Step 2 – Perform site suitability analysis and develop criteria to develop five (5) comprehensive urban water

strategy concepts to reduce flood risk from coastal storm surge and rainfall events

Step 3 – Perform a qualitative evaluation assessment with input from the community on the five (5) concepts

to develop three (3) alternatives for further detail analysis and evaluation

Step 4 – Perform detailed analysis and evaluation of the three (3) alternatives to compare the benefits and

impacts of these three (3) alternatives with the No-Action alternative

Step 5 – With community feedback and results from the evaluation, formalize a preferred master plan

alternative with recommendations for a “Resist” alignment for future design and construction

Information gathering and analysis for both the feasibility study and the concurrent NEPA review began in

early June 2015. This included compiling existing data and conducting field work to gather detailed

information on topography, geotechnical characteristics and conditions of existing waterfront structures.

Existing sources of data pertaining to location of wetlands, hazardous wastes, floodplains, cultural resources,

groundwater and other environmental parameters were analyzed to identify potential constraints and

magnitude of potential environmental impacts. The location of existing infrastructure and conditions such as

parks, roads, stormwater systems, subsurface utilities, foundation structures and ground elevations establish

the available footprint to construct various components of the “Resist” and DSD interventions. The size and

availability of the footprint area dictates the type of potential interventions that could be constructed, such as

earthen berms, floodwalls, or deployable flood systems.

To begin the concept development process, an initial coastal storm surge hydrodynamic model was developed

utilizing Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI)’s MIKE 21 model to understand the pathways and locations for

coastal storm surge to enter into the study area. A toolkit consisting of possible approaches to address both

coastal storm surge and rainfall flooding risk reduction was developed. The toolkit’s coastal storm surge risk

reduction components were arranged geographically to prevent the intrusion of coastal storm surge into the

study area. The DSD components of the toolkit included a full range of approaches intended to maximize

storage and discharge of rainfall runoff volume. In order to organize the toolkit, tactical themes were developed

to help define the parameters of the project and help develop concepts for further consideration.

The feasibility of implementing “Resist” strategies and various stormwater management components

depended upon several factors including, but not limited to, cost, effectiveness, ROW availability, utility


impacts, subsurface conditions, maintenance needs, and life-cycle costs. Due to the urban density of the project

area with limited public property, siting opportunities to address stormwater are restricted.

With input from City of Hoboken, North Hudson Sewerage Authority (NHSA), and other stakeholders, the

DSD strategy encompassed of green and gray infrastructure at two scales – small public Right-of-Way (ROW)

and large parcels. An iterative process involving site suitability and intervention type assessment was

conducted to reach five comprehensive concepts which addressed both coastal storm surge and rainfall

flooding. Each “Resist” concept had varying levels of coastal flood risk reduction and impacts to the built and

natural environment. The DSD strategy was the same for all five concepts (see Figure 1-1).

In conjunction with NEPA effort, a screening matrix for the evaluation of the five concepts was developed

through stakeholder and community interaction. The five comprehensive concepts including “Resist” and DSD

components were presented to the public in a meeting held on December 10, 2015. As a results of concerns

expressed over the concepts presented during the public comment period subsequent to the December

meeting, additional variations were developed for the northern alignments with close coordination with

stakeholders. A qualitative assessment was performed to analyze the potential benefits and impacts of these

new variations in the northern section of the project area. Based on this analysis and public feedback, two

concepts (Concept C and D) were removed and three initial “Resist” concepts (A, B and E) were modified to

include variations in the north and the south portions of the study area. At a community meeting on February

18, 2016, these three “Resist” concepts were determined to become Alternatives 1 (also referred to as

“Waterfront” alignment), Alternative 2 (also referred to as “15th Street” alignment) and Alternative 3 (also

referred to as “Alleyway” alignment) along with the accompanying DSD components.

As part of the alternative analysis phase, a multidisciplinary team effort was conducted to thoroughly analyze,

evaluate and develop a conceptual level design of the three chosen alternatives. The MIKE 21 coastal

hydrodynamic model was used to evaluate the effectiveness and fine tune the three “Resist” alternatives.

Multiple storm scenario coastal model simulations were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of each

“Resist” alternative to provide flood risk reduction benefits during coastal storm surge events. Model results

shows that the “Resist” alternatives provided flood risk reduction benefits to 85% - 98% of the population

currently living in the preliminary 2015 FEMA 1-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Model results also showed

that portions of Jersey City within and outside the study area receive additional flood risk reduction benefits

during the 10-percent-annual-chance, 2-percent-annual-chance, and 1-percent-annual-chance coastal storm

events. A 2-percent-annual-chance flood is the flood level that has a 1 in 50 chance of being reached or

exceeded in any given year and the 10-percent-annual-chance flood is the flood level that has a 1 in 10 chance

of being reached or exceeded in any given year.

The 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 65.10 requirements were utilized to develop the base design flood

elevations (DFE) for the “Resist” structure barrier for all three alternatives, as discussed in greater detail in

Section 7.1.1. Future sea level rise of 2.34 feet that corresponded to 2075 NOAA’s intermediate high scenario


was added to the base DFE to develop the final DFE. Using CFR 65.10, freeboard, and added sea level rise for

the base design level complies with the President’s Executive Order 13690, the Federal Flood Risk Management

Standard (FFRMS). These DFE’s were then used to determine maximum structure heights in various portions

(or reaches) along each alternative. A basis of design document was developed to estimate forces and load

combinations that would guide the conceptual design of the subsurface and superstructure footprint. These

structure footprints and the potential available additional space for “Resist” barrier were then utilized to

develop potential urban design features that would improve the quality of life within the community.

Numerous community meetings were held to elicit input from the public on specific requirements and desires

for creating both “Resist” and DSD features that complement and/or enhance the existing urban fabric of

localized sections of the project area.

The effectiveness of the four proposed DSD strategies which includes the BASF site, NJ Transit site, Block 10

site and sixty one Right-of-Way (ROW) green and gray infrastructure sites to provide flood risk reduction

benefits during rainfall events were evaluated with DHI’s MIKE URBAN and MIKE FLOOD models in low tide

and mean high tide conditions. Model results showed potential for up to 81% reduction in the flooded areas

with the proposed DSD strategies over the baseline conditions (or No-action alternative) during a 25-percent-

annual-chance 24-hour rainfall event with mean low tide in Hudson River. The DSD strategies shows

significant reductions in areas that flooded in the baseline conditions for rainfall events ranging from the 25-

percent-annual-chance 24-hour to the 1-percent-annual-chance 24-hour events. For each DSD strategy, site

analysis was performed to develop potential conceptual landscape treatment design options that would provide

community benefits in addition to improved stormwater management.

Preliminary cost estimates were developed for each comprehensive master plan alternative. The FEMA

Benefit Cost Analysis tool was utilized to develop the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of each alternative. Results of

the feasibility evaluation benefits and impacts of each alternative as well as additional NEPA review analysis

was shared with public at community meetings were held in July and August 2016. Based on the feedback from

the community including input from key stakeholders and evaluation of alternatives, the comprehensive

master plan alternative consisting of “Resist” Alternative 3 (Alleyway) and all the DSD components emerged

as the recommended preferred alternative (see Figure 1-2). It was determined that Alternative 3 provided the

most balanced approach to delivering significant coastal flood risk reduction benefits to the community within

the available budget of $230 million and by the required schedule completion of September 2022. In addition,

Alternative 3 creates the opportunity for beneficial activation of certain “Resist” features including enhanced

public park space while minimizing perceived negative impacts to the community.


Figure 1-1. Initial Five Concepts with “Resist” and DSD Components


Figure 1-2. Conceptual Master Plan Alternative with the Recommended “Resist” Alternative

rebuild by design - hudson river project · 4.9.2 hoboken green infrastructure strategic plan...

Documents