HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Agenda Packet 2020-03-11ORTS DEPARTMENT OF
PANGELE
w A s H 1 N(-- T o N. U.S. COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
321 East Fifth Street
March 11, 2020
6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. Recognition of Pamela Hastings and Duane Morris for Planning Commission service.
VI. ACTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Staff recap on City Council 2/18 motions made regarding climate change
2. Action: Planning Commission Subcommittee recommendation to dissolve and move to
broader Planning Commission.
3. Action: Re -adoption of Climate Action Workplan
VII. PRESENTATION: Climate Action in Jefferson County by Cindy Jayne, Jefferson County/Port
Townsend Climate Action Committee Chair
VIII. STAFF UPDATES
IX. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
X. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
Port Angeles, Washington 98362
February 12, 2020 6:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Stanley opened the regular meeting at 6:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Mel Messineo, Pamela Hastings, Duane Morris, Benjamin
Stanley (Chair), Andrew Schwab (Vice -Chair),
City Staff Present: Emma Bolin (Manager)
Ben Braudrick (Associate Planner)
Allyson Brekke (Director)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Schwab moved to accept the minutes from the November 13, 2019, December 12,
2019 and January 22, 2020 meeting. Commissioner Morris seconded, all were in approval
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Subcommittee Dresentation and consideration of Climate Action Workman
Chair Stanley and Commissioner Messineo detailed the Subcommittee and various task group
actions and the recommended workplan in light of possible future Council action. Discussion
followed. Director Brekke detailed actions taken to involve Clallam County in the process.
Discussion continued on next steps in the process and workplan.
Manager Bolin made the Commission aware that the FEWsion study was not included in the
workplan, which was a mistake. She recommended that it be included.
Commissioner Messineo made a motion to adopt the Climate Action Subcommittee
workplan as it is written with the inclusion of the Council motion to pursue the FEWsion
study. Commissioner Schwab seconded, all were in favor.
(Note: Due to access issues for community members, this motion has been deemed invalid)
2. Staff discussion on future Dolicv direction from Citv Council reaardiniz climate
change
Director Brekke informed the Commission of a memo that was placed in the February 18, 2020
City Council Agenda Packet by Community and Economic Development requesting assistance in
completing the Carbon Inventory, Public Participation Plan, Climate Action and Resilience Plan
by a consultant. Discussion continued about the opportunity to hire a consultant to assist staff in
Planning Commission Minutes
February 12, 2020
Page 2
achieving the requests from Council.
STAFF UPDATES
Director Brekke thanked Commissioner Morris for his time on the Planning Commission, noting
that his final term would end March 1st. She then updated the Commission on efforts to fill the soon
to be three vacancies.
The annual report will hopefully be complete and provided to the Commission prior to the next
meeting.
She announced the Peninsula Section of the Washington Chapter of the American Planning
Association would be hosting an educational forum focused on Climate Action on February 27' in
Poulsbo.
REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Commissioner Morris stated that due to attendance at the Garden Show in Seattle, he likely
would not attend the February 26th meeting, making tonight his last meeting.
Chair Stanley mentioned his interested in mapping and planning trails and multimodal
transportation in Port Angeles; both urban and connecting to the greater region.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Ben Braudrick, Secretary Ben Stanley, Chair
PREPARED BY: Ben Braudrick, Secretary
PoRTANGELES DEPARTMENT OF
w ASH ING TO N, u. s I COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Planning Commission Climate Action
Subcommittee Work Plan:
Background:
The 2019 City Work Plan included an item that called for the creation of a local working group to put
together a community driven Climate Action Plan. This community driven Climate Action Plan included
proposed strategies and actions for both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. A City Climate
Action Planning Group (CAPG) was formed and met regularly from January to October 2019. The group
prepared a report containing recommendations and strategies for the creation of a Climate Action Plan
for consideration by the City Council.
On November 6, 2019 the City Council voted in favor of 3 separate motions:
1. Work with Northern Arizona University's FEWSION project;
2. Adopt the Climate Action Planning Group Summary of Recommendations; and
3. Send the Climate Action Plan to the Planning Commission and suggest they create a
subcommittee and follow the recommendations listed.
In accordance with motions 2 and 3, the City Council recommends this Planning Commission
Subcommittee consider the following from the CAPG Resiliency Plan (pulled directly from the CAPG
Resiliency Plan: Recommendations Addressing Climate Change, pg. 3):
2. The CPAG conducted a preliminary prioritization process for a suite of policy, planning and
implementation proposals. While we recommend that most of those be forwarded to the
planning commission for further deliberation, this group recommends that city council
immediately act on three of them:
a. Authorize a comprehensive Green House Gas emissions inventory to establish baselines
for measuring progress in partnership with the Olympic Climate Action Committee and
should be complete by the end of 2020. This group finds that such an inventory is
essential for evaluating the effectiveness of many of the actions proposed by this group
for consideration by the Planning Commission
b. Integrate climate considerations more explicitly into the City's existing planning efforts. A
variety of specific recommendations are offered for consideration by the Planning
Commission
c. Continue to emphasize city-wide energy -use reduction, including:
i. increase use of public transportation and the use of electric vehicles;
ii. support development of infrastructure to increase biking and walking in the City;
iii. move towards 100% clean, renewable electrical energy source for the city by
2030 (including focus on increasing percentages of local, decentralized, non -
hydropower renewable energy use);
iv. increase energy conservation and energy efficiency in our buildings; and
v. encourage use of local renewable energy.
Work Plan Assumptions:
• Meetings may be held at City Hall or the Port Angeles Library
• The subcommittee will dedicate a minimum of one meeting a month to progress reporting on
Tasks 1-5
• The Climate Action Plan will formally be adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan during the
regular 2021 annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle:
o The amendment cycle will formally open on January 1, 2021.
o Proposals shall be submitted no later than March 31". A rough draft of the Plan should be
completed by this date.
o Planning Commission hearings will be conducted prior to or during May.
0 60-day notice to adopt must be provided to the Washington State Department of
Commerce (WSDOC) no later than April 16, 2021. A draft of the document is required for
the submission of this notice.
o City Council hearings will be conducted prior to or during June
o Final submission to the WSDOC by June 30, 2021.
• Volunteers will be largely responsible for Tasks 2a, including:
o stakeholder coordination;
o data gathering; and
o use of inventory software and report creation.
• Task 2b references 7 complex recommendations that the Climate Action Plan should address.
Selection and priority of these recommendations should occur early in the work plan effort in
order to immediately begin necessary groundwork for the planning effort.
Tentative Schedule:
-Work Plan Development -
January 8, 2020: Review and discuss selection and priority of recommended deliverables.
January 22, 2020: Review and Assign Tasks to participants
February 12, 2020: Review and discuss municipality's existing action plans, code, and Comp. Plans
February 26, 2020: Continue review of existing plans and begin draft outline for plan
-Breakout Task Development -
March -June: Task groups continue work on individual project workplan, scope, and
milestones.
July 8, 2020: Mid -year Task 2 and 3 Update
August 12, 2020: Presentation of Task 5 Outline and Task 4 Audit
-Public Input -
September 2, 2020: Open House Public Meeting for plan input
October 14, 2020: Presentation of Public Input to Subcommittee and next steps
-Climate Action and Community Resilience Plan Development -
Oct -December 2020 or subsequent year: Begin drafting Plan
January 1, 2021 or subsequent year: Open up Amendment Cycle to Public
March 31, 2021 or subsequent year: Amendment proposals are due from the Public
April 7 2021 or subsequent year: Present subcommittee recommended Draft to Planning
Commission & consider additional proposals
April 16, 2021 or subsequent year: 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt Amendment proposals due to
Commerce
-Public Hearings and Decision -
April 28, 2021 or subsequent year: Planning Commission Public Hearing on Amendment (continued
to May 12)
May 12, 2021 or subsequent year: Planning Commission Public Hearing on Amendment and
Recommendation to Council
June 5, 2021 or subsequent year: City Council 15t Reading
June 19, 2021 or subsequent year: City Council Decision
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Experience
in Jefferson County
CINDY JAYNE
Overview
Inventory:
Scope of Inventory
Inventory Components
Process
Inventory Work and Timing
Lessons Learned
Thoughts on Consultant/Volunteer Model
A few Climate Action Committee (CAC) items
to share
Jefferson County Inventory
Background
City (PT) and County authorized its first GHG Inventory Team in 2007 (base year
2005)
In Feb 2019, City and County authorized CAC to conduct a second GHG
Inventory (base year 2018) and approved purchase of ICLEI Software
Inventory effort ran March 2019 — March 2020
ICLEI Software has two tracks — Community and Government
Community -wide
Government (organizations)
ICLEI — International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
CAC — Climate Action Committee
Clearpath — ICLEI software for inventory
Jefferson County Inventory
Scope
Jeff Co doing county -wide, as well as detailed analyses ("government
track" of all CAC organizations (city, county, hospital, Jefferson Transit,
Port, PUD, Port Townsend Paper Corp)
Fort Worden (not part of CAC) asked to participate to provide a baseline, and
provided electricity data only
2005 Scope: The 2005 inventory included Residential, Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation and Solid Waste
2018 Scope: In addition to the above, we chose to include agriculture, forestry,
and a consumption based inventory
Took a bit of work to include these. In speaking with ICLEI, including these is
rare, and they were impressed by our scope!
"Not many communities, especially of a relatively small population size, are taking on an inventory
so ambitious, to quantify gov't operations, community, forest and consumption emissions and
compare those to a baseline" — Kale Roberts, ICLEI
G HG Inventory Team—All
Volunteers
Cindy Jayne —CAC &Team Leader/Doer
Bill Wise —Inventory Data Entry
Marion Huxtable —Solid Waste &Transportation,
and Messaging
Karen Steinmaus —Agriculture and Forestry
Diane McDade (CAC) —Messaging, Rollout
Richard lahnke —Consumption Approach
GHG Inventory Components
ICLEI's Clearpath Software
GHG Inventory Raw Data — Base Year 2005
Request Forms for Base Year 2018 Data Collection
Community track and Governments tracks
Request spreadsheets tailored to each entity
GHG Inventory Team coordinated through Google Drive to
share data reporting and team progress
Used Google Drive as repository for all process documents, data
inputs, spreadsheet analysis, source documents/links
Draft and final reports shared to coordinate editing/updates
All files/reports will form repository for next GHG Inventory Team
Community Track Data
Electricity use broken down into residential, commercial and industrial
From Jefferson, Mason, Grays Harbor PUD's
Fossil fuel usage (gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, propane, etc.)
From census data
Information regarding total waste generated and characterization, and
details related to the landfill methane capture and handling, etc.
From Jefferson County, and Republic Services (Roosevelt Landfill)
Details of electricity and fossil fuels used and generated in the handling
of wastewater.
City and PUD
Community Track Data
Vehicle Miles Traveled
From WSDOT
Electricity used by water agencies in Jefferson County, and population
served, related to extraction, treatment and distribution of potable
wate r
Agricultural data limited to livestock type and numbers (farming not
currently included in Clearpath, for crops or aquaculture)
Forestry: recently added to Clearpath, but guidance documents still in
work. Researched other efforts, and identified two US Forest Service
(USFS) efforts that were able to do Jefferson County analysis, utilizing
the USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis data. However, not sufficient
data to provide statistically significant results at the county level.
Did include in the report the total amount of forested lands in the county,
based on GIS data
Government Track Data
Electricity use, per building
Gasoline, diesel, propane, biodiesel, ethanol, natural gas or
other fuel types, usage by organization
Fleet vehicle information (types of vehicles, fuel types and
quantities used, miles traveled)
Employee Commute data (voluntary survey)
Done as google survey, can share
Process
Climate Action Committee partnered with Local 20/20 to gather
volunteer team, and effort was run by that group
Recruited volunteers
County purchased ICLEI Membership (funded by city and county)
Access to the ICLEI software was approved by a county employee (all
volunteers had access, but only 2 used it heavily.)
Wrote letter of Support to PUD, WSDOT, WSU, Republic Services, etc.,
outlining type of data that we would be requesting, and who the
volunteers were
From Climate Action Committee, signed by Mayor and County Commissioner,
and CAC Chair
Jefferson County Inventory
Work
Volunteers spent 3 months defining exactly what data we wanted
(March 2019 —June 2019)
ICLEI has lots of possible calculators, we reviewed all and decided which
ones were relevant to us
See Tracking Spreadsheet
Sent out requests for data in mid June, asked back by end of August
Inputted Raw Data from the 2005 GHG Inventory
for comparison with 2018 Inventory
Designed a commute survey form matching ICLEI inputs
Organizational effort is primarily for government track — gathering data
noted in that track. Can be scaled up or down. For ex, we asked for
building sq footage, not hours of occupancy, etc. And commute survey is
optional but useful.
Jefferson County Inventory
Work
Another set of work was related to identifying various factors:
Electricity emissions factor
Vehicle emissions by vehicle type (gas passenger, light truck, diesel, etc.)
Understanding different IPCC Assessment models (due to 2005 comparison)
Data gathering:
WSDOT data
USDA agriculture data, census data (households, population, etc.)
Quality control: one person entered data received from organizations
into software, another reviewed it and source forms (did not review
organizational sources)
Software has lots of flexibility to do what makes sense for you — scope,
etc., can be defined, software will allow just basics or more complete
Jefferson County Inventory
Work
Collected data over summer (June - Sept), reviewed it as it came in,
sent reminders for data not received.
Entered data in the Fall (Sept — Nov)
Reviewed data, analyzed, refined (Nov — Dec)
Wrote report (Dec — Feb)
Report writing was a lot of work, partly due to 2005 comparison, and
provided a lot of detail. Base ICLEI report template has just charts from
Clearpath, likely much faster
Writing report triggered more data refinement
Total effort on the order of —600 hours?
Inventory -Jeff Co Lessons
Clearpath is weak for Agriculture Sector. One must hand -do calculations
following examples from ICLEI, and only covers livestock.
Clearpath does not currently have any capability for assessing green
house gas emissions for forested lands.
Clearpath is a sector based model, not a consumption based model.
(There is some ability to do consumption, but need detailed data not
available in Jefferson County). We included an alternative discussion on
Community consumption using the University of California, Berkeley
CoolClimate Network, which has estimated the household emissions
inventories for every zip code in the United States
Consumption based inventory is a different beast, and could easily be done
as a separate effort
Inventory -Jeff Co Lessons
Once inventory is done, ICLEI Software has ability to define projections,
and then model various reduction strategies built into the software. So
may want to plan on multi -year ICLEI membership.
Define report charts early (use ICLEI's or not, and define format for
them)
Clearpath doesn't have a way to assign different privileges to different
people — all can access all records
It always takes a little longer than you think
Thoughts on
Consultant/Volunteer Model
Consultant could be project manager, and primary report writer
Volunteers could be assigned to different focus areas
Transportation, Energy, Forestry, Agriculture, Solid Waste worked well
Commute Survey work is a standalone piece
Messaging and Rollout out is another key piece
Data entry
Data review
Data is generally not anything confidential (electricity and fuel use of
city is likely public record; WSDOT data, USDA data all public)
Most of data gathered will be in the report and appendices, so will be public
Commute survey may require special care, but google form made responses
confidential
CAC — Other Items to Share
Developed Decision Matrix for evaluating climate impacts for projects
and/or plans
Sent to Emma and Ben
Provided recommendations to city/county re increasing level of flood -
proofing buildings to > Base Flood Elevation + 1'. Assn of Flood Plain
Managers noted savings in insurance from doing so. PT adopted BFE +
2'.
Have more detail on this if interested
Discussion
Thank you!
CLIMATE
A C T I 01
COMMITTEE
Climate Risk Screening Tool
(December, 2019)
Building resilience to climate change is vital to durable and responsible investment, planning, and decision -
making. Screening for risks from climate hazards improves the likelihood and longevity of a policy or project's
success. It saves everyone money in the long run — helping to avoid building things that may later fail —
conserving the limited budgets of the city and county, and protecting private property owners and citizens from
future damages.
Much of the infrastructure on the North Olympic Peninsula is located on low -bank oceanfront sites or within
floodplains. This includes buildings supporting health and safety, utility services, maritime industries, tourism,
banking, government, residential, and retail. These are vulnerable to the projected climate change impacts of sea
level rise, storm surge, and coastal flooding. Will today's plans, projects and policies be resilient under
environmental conditions in 10, 30, or 80 years?
Climate change is likely one of the most important challenges for Jefferson County.' Future conditions may
present a risk to both long-term economic sustainability and essential services in the region. The Climate Risk
Screening T0012 is designed to be used as a component of due diligence for climate hazards at the concept or
approval stage of planning and policy or project development in Jefferson County. It helps users consider and
characterize risks based on key components of a plan, policy or project3. Potential risks are identified based on
the best available science from recent publications.4 Users are also encouraged to consider the associated
greenhouse gas emissions. The tool includes:
' The Pacific Northwest is already experiencing drier summers, reductions in snowpack and glacial mass, higher spring and lower summer river
flows, and a more acidic ocean. These are not isolated effects, but part of a larger regional and global trend of changing climate conditions that is
driven primarily by human activity. North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council (NOPRC&D) Climate Change
Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic Peninsula (September 2015).
2 Adapted from the World Bank Group Climate and Disaster Risk Screening Tools and
USAID Overarching Guide: A Methodology for Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation in Infrastructure Planning and Design (November 2015).
s NOPRC&D 2015 identifies the development and use of decision -making tools related to climate change risks as one of the "Top 10" strategies for
building critical infrastructure resilience.
a Draws heavily from the North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council (NOPRC&D) Climate Change Preparedness
Plan for the North Ol Tpic Peninsula (September 2015); Climate Impacts Group (CIG), University of Washington — Climate Change (webpage
accessed 2019); Department of Ecology (DoE), State of Washington: Adaptation Strategies for Resilient Clean Up Remedies — A Guide for Cleanup
Proiect Managers to Increase the Resilience of Toxic Cleanup Sites to the Impacts from Climate Change (November 2107); Climate Impacts Group,
University of Washington —State o Knowledge Report: Climate Change in Puget Sound (November 2015)
Summary of Exposure to Local Climate Hazards: Table I is a summary of local climate hazards
for the historical/current and future time frames.' Exposure to climate hazards is evaluated in two
time frames, because past records are not necessarily indicative of future conditions.
Risk Matrix: Table II is intended to help planners, project developers, and decision makers identify
potential climate risks to a specific plan, policy or project.6 The aim is to rate potential impacts on
the project's components, along with the overall risk. The emissions profile of the
plan/policy/project can also be considered.
The tool itself does not provide a detailed risk assessment, rather it helps planners, policy makers
and developers flag risks to inform consultations, enhance dialogue to avoid or mitigate exposure to
risk, and result in better, smarter investments. The results indicate where risks may exist and where
further work may be required to reduce or manage these climate risks in line with existing best
practices'. The level of assessment undertaken for a project should be commensurate with the size
and impact of the project being evaluated$.
Figure 1: Exposure - sensitivity - adaptive capacity framework9
JKxposure I
otential impact Adaptive capacity
• What types of hazards might the plan/project Ijven the exposure to hazards, what are the potential impacts IkCan aspects be modified and to what extent
experience and to what extent �n the aspects of my policy/project design
im
5 Projections are included for the mid-century (i.e., the 2050s, which are defined as years 2040 to 2069), and for the end of the century (2100) where
data exists.
6 Sectors may include: energy (generation, transmission, distribution), water (potable, supply, and distribution), building systems (building services,
fire and safety), transport (passengers, emergency services, logistics including food/waste/materials), information and telecommunications networks,
and security and physical protection.
In the future Annex I will include best practice resources, including resiliency assessment frameworks.
8 There is no threshold with respect to the size or cost of a policy, plan or project. Each organization shall determine the appropriate application of the
tool, or elements of, for that organization. An ongoing process of monitoring risks, refining climate and other information, and regular impact
assessment may also be appropriate. A cost analysis to help guide investment decisions may be another valuable tool to apply.
9 Arup, RPA and Siemens. Toolkit for Resilient Cities -Infrastructure, Technology and Urban Planning
Figure II Resiliencelo
Robustness Pobust infrastructure isable to
withstand the impacts of hazard events without
significant damage or I055 0l• function.
What is resilience?
Resilience I The capacity of people,
Redundancy Redundant systems have spare or
organizations and systems to prepare for,
latent capacity (or the ability to manage loads),
respond, recover from and thrive in the face
which can absorb sudden surges in demand or
of hazards. and to adjust to continual change.
partial loss of supply. Rack up equipment map W
Resilient systems share certain qualities such
used to enable continuity of service in the event
as redundancy, flexi bill I ty a nd responsiveness.
of infrastructure failure.
HaZald I A sudden event or gradual
change, which can lead to impacts on
a plate or people_
Exposure I People and things loca led in
a place that could be affected by a hazard_
Vulnerability I f he propensily for a
hazard to affect the wellbeing of a person,
community or organization.
RiSk I The impact that occurs, whose severity
depends on haw the above factors interact.
Key form€ fMtad to risk aFkd res+lienoe''
Resilieno
Diversity and flexibility Diversity and flexibility
In infrastructure systems mean that services
may be supplied via a number of pathways,
using distributed resources and multifunctionO
equipment. If one pathway fails, another can be
used to achieve the same service.
Responsiveness Responsive infrastructure
systems Incorporate automated monitoring, short
feedback loops and controls at multiple points,
enabling tmnsparenq of performance data and
rapid adjustment to maintain functionality.
Coordination Coordination between systems
means that knowledge is shared, planning is
lazard. Exposure, collaborative and strategic, and responses are
Fulnerability integrated for mutual benefit,
10 Arup, RPA and Siemens. Toolkit for Resilient Cities - Infrastructure, Technolo,a and Urban Planning
Table I: Summary of Exposure to Local Climate Hazards
This table highlights key climate hazards that may be relevant for consideration II
Climate Hazard
Time
Description of local hazard
Examples of potential impacts
frame12
Temperature
Changes in
Current
1.3 °F increase in temperature averages in
Warmer temperatures may result in
Temperature
the Puget Sound region (1895-2011), with
longer growing season; increased water
Averages
warming occurring in winter, fall, and
temperatures in Puget Sound, estuaries,
summer. The frost -free season has
and freshwater bodies with impacts on
lengthened, increasing by more than 30 days
salmon and other aquatic life; increased
in the Puget Sound region from 1920 to
wildfire risk; decreased soil moisture;
2014. 13 Glaciers in the Olympic Mountains
more severe drought and potentially
have decreased by 7% in area and 31% in
lower water tables; reduced amount of
number from 1980 to 2009. In Washington,
snowpack, shorter snow season and
snow pack has decreased by 25%.14
earlier spring snowmelt, which is
Future
In the Pacific Northwest, temperatures are
expected to reduce water supplies during
projected to increase an average of 4.3-5.8
the drier summer months; and stressed
°F in all seasons.16
forests through disease and insect
outbreaks. is
Changes in
Current
Increase in nighttime heat events.
Increases in extreme air temperatures,
Temperature
Future
A slight increase in days over 90 °F (+8 days)
resulting in more frequent and intense
Extremes
is predicted for the Pacific Northwest, with a
heatwaves; less frequent and intense
few more 95 °F days on the Olympic
cold events in winter; and an increase in
Peninsula, and a longer frost -free season
the frequency and intensity of wildfires.17
(+35 days) across the Pacific Northwest."
Rainfall
Changes in
Current
No significant change in overall amount;
A diminishing snowpack melting earlier in
Average
regional decrease in snowpack and glaciers
spring, lowering the region's summer
Precipitation
in the Pacific Northwest. 19
river flow, more severe drought, and
Future
Little average annual change in overall
potentially lower water tables.
rainfall — however, with drier summers (-6 to
-8% average decrease). 20 More winter
precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow,
leading to a significant loss of snowpack in
the Olympics by 2080 (-37 to -55%).
Continued glacier recession .21
Changes in
Current
Increased frequency of extreme
A diminishing snowpack lowering the
Precipitation
precipitation events in the spring in Western
region's summer river flow and
Extremes and
Washington.22 Peak spring stream flow
extending the summer drought season.
Flooding
occurring earlier in the season (up to 20
Shifts in the timing and type of
days) in many snowmelt-influenced rivers
precipitation, creating rain on snow
between 1948 and 2002.23
events and unseasonably high stream
11 The table is not exhaustive but intended as a compilation of the key hazards. As the science is continuously evolving, it will need to be updated
overtime.
12 Exposure to climate hazards is evaluated in two time frames, because past records are not necessarily indicative of future conditions. Projections
are included for the mid-century (i.e., the 2050s, which are defined as years 2040 to 2069), and for the end of the century (2100) where data exists.
s NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019 and DoE 2017
a CIG 2019 and DoE 2017
5 NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019 and DoE 2017
16 NOPRC&D 2015
17 ibid
11 NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019 and DoE 2017
19 ibid
20 CIG 2019
21 NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019 and DoE 2017
22 DoE 2017
21 ibid
Future
A 22% increase in heavy rainfall events to
flows that scour river bottoms, flood low -
about 8 days per year on average, from 2
land areas and increase riverine
days per year in the past. Earlier peak
sediment transport in fall, winter, and
streamflow in rivers with a significant
spring. Increased landslide risk due to
snowmelt component. 21
saturation of soil. 24
Ocean/Coast
Sea Level Rise
Current
0.6 feet rise in mean sea level for Port
Coastal flooding and inundation, coastal
Townsend (over the last 100 years).21
storm and wave -driven impacts,
increased shoreline erosion and
Future
50% chance that mean sea level for Port
Townsend will rise by >_0.9 feet by 2050 and
shoreline retreat, saltwater intrusion,
>_2.4 feet by 2100. 5% chance of sea level
changes in groundwater, loss and change
rise of >_1.2 feet by 2050 and >_3.9 feet by
in coastal ecosystems and habitat.
2100.27 See report for other probabilities.
Annual Coastal
Current
50% chance each year that the largest
Coastal flooding and inundation,
Flood Elevation
coastal flooding event in Port Townsend will
saltwater inundation, increased shoreline
reach or exceed >_2.1 feet above mean sea
erosion, and saltwater intrusion into
level. 5% chance of >_2.8 feet.28 See report
rivers and groundwater.
for other probabilities.
Future
50% chance each year that the largest
coastal flooding event in Port Townsend will
reach or exceed >_2.9 feet above mean sea
level by 2050 and >A.5 feet by 2100. 5%
chance of >_3.8 feet by 2050 and >_6.1 feet by
2100. 29 See report for other probabilities.
Damaging
Current
The magnitude of storm surge has and will
An increase in the elevation, depth, or
surges
continue to increase as rising sea levels are
extent of flooding along marine and
(combined
combined with high tides and storm
coastal shorelines; increased inland reach
effect of sea
surges.31
of high tides with increased flooding
Future
level rise, high
further inland of the coastline; saltwater
tide, storm
intrusion further upstream in tidally
surges)30
influenced rivers; saltwater intrusion into
groundwater; increased landslide risk or
rates of erosion along coastal bIUffs.32
Ocean
Current
Puget Sound is experiencing a reduction in
Increasingly corrosive waters, impacting
Acidification
pH; the pH of the Northeast Pacific Ocean
the abundance and diversity of marine
surface waters has decreased by -0.27 from
species, including key components of the
1991-2006. 33
food web (phytoplankton and
Future
Unknown, but increased acidification of the
zooplankton), salmon, and commercial
marine waters in Puget Sound and Pacific
fisheries and shellfish production (Pacific
coast is expected.35
mackerel, Pacific hake, oysters, mussels,
English sole, and yellowtail rockfish).34
25 NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019,and DoE 2017
24 CIG 2019,and DoE 2017
26 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Relative Sea Level Trend 9444900 Port Townsend, Washington. Note: The rate of sea
level rise varies at different locations in Puget Sound and on the Pacific coast due to factors such as land subsidence or uplift, weather patterns, and
ocean currents. DoE 2017
27 Absolute sea level for Puget Sound is projected to change and coastal areas will experience varying sea level rise due to different area -specific
vertical land movement (DoE 2017). Note other probabilities, years and geographies are available, see recent reports including Washington Coastal
Resilience Project — Projected Sea Level Rise in Washington State: A 2018 Assessment (July 2018) and Gregg RM, Reynier W, Gaines LJ, Behan J
(editors). 2018. Available Science Assessment Process (ASAP): Sea Level Rise in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Report to the
Northwest Climate Adaptation Science Center. EcoAdapt (Bainbridge Island, WA) and the Institute for Natural Resources (Corvallis, OR).
21 NOPRC&D 2015
29 NOPRC&D 2015
" Only a limited number of studies have evaluated changes in storm surge and waves for Washington state. Current research suggests that these will
not change in the future. These events may have a greater impact due to a higher base sea level, but the amount of storm surge or the height of ocean
waves is not projected to change DoE 2017
31 DoE 2017
32 ibid
33 DOE 2017
14 CIG 2019
Wind
Damaging
Current
The intensity and frequency of storm winds
Wind direction and magnitude influence
Future
winds
may increase, but trends are unclear.36
wave direction and height, and can also
"pile" water against the coastline. Both
processes exacerbate coastal erosion and
increase inundation during storm events;
downed trees on power lines/roads.37
Fire
Wildfires38
Current
Increased fire activity (the number and size
Projected increases in area burned;
of fires)39, despite this area not thought to
habitat, property and infrastructure
have been historically fire prone.40
destruction; increased soil erosion and
run off; water contamination; decreased
Future
Increase in the frequency and intensity of
air quality.
wildfires due to increasing summer air
temperatures and drier conditions. ai
ss DoE 2017
36 Miller, LM, Shishido, C., Antrim, L., Bowlby, C.E. (Eds.), 2013. Climate Change and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Interpreting
Potential Futures. U.S. Department of Commerce.
37 NOPRC&D 2015 and Miller, I.M, Shishido, C., Antrim, L., Bowlby, C.E. (Eds.), 2013
38 Further research is needed to clarify the mechanisms of changing fire risk and severity in the Puget Sound region.
39 DoE 2017
"Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington —State ofKnowled2e Report: Climate Change in Puget Sound (November 2015)
41 DoE 2017 and Information from Climate Impacts Group 2015
Table 11: Risk Matrix
Climate
Impacts
Sensitivity of project components
Selected risk
Outcome
Comments
Hazard
reduction measures
Location
Physical
Non-physical
components
components
[Intentionally
blank, to be
populated by
user]
The following is an example of how a hypothetical project42 — in this case a road improvement — could be
screened.
Project: Hypothetical Road Improvement Project
Location: Kuhn St, between 49th and North beach, Port Townsend
Short Description: The project will rehabilitate and upgrade 0.5 miles of Kuhn St. The work will
include replacing culverts and repairing road surfaces damaged by storms and floods.
1) Exposure: Consider the applicability of the climate hazards included in Table I. Not all climate
hazards may apply to all projects. 43
Climate Hazard
Exposed44
Changes in Temperature Averages
No
Changes in Temperature Extremes
Yes
Changes in Precipitation Averages
No
Changes in Precipitation Extremes and Flooding
Yes
Sea Level Rise
Yes
Annual Coastal Flood Elevation
Yes
Damaging surges
Yes
Ocean Acidification
No
Damaging winds
No
Wildfires
No
a2 The project described, including impacts and sensitivity, are for illustrative purposes only.
as Some helpful resources to assist in conceptualizing how climate change hazards could affect different projects, plans or policies can be found in
EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool: Moving Communities from Planning to
Implementation (April 2019), see Step 1: Identification of Climate Change Risk Factors (page 4 and 5), and USAID Overarching Guide A
Methodology for Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation in Infrastructure Planning and Design (November 2015), see Chapter 2.
44 A climate hazard can also be rated maybe or unsure, and flagged for further follow up.
2) Potential impact and sensitivity: For each potential impact identified above, indicate the level of
sensitivity of each project component (considering location, physical components, and non-physical
components) for the relevant climate hazards. Color -coded scores and/or text descriptions could be
used, as shown below.
Climate Hazard
impacts
Sensitivity of project components
Location
Physical
Non-physical
components
components45
Extreme Heat
High temperatures may
crack pavement
Data
Extreme
More frequent and
gathering
Precipitation
extensive flooding may
(vehicle/bike
and Flooding
occur
usage, road
surface
Coastal Flooding
Periodic or permanent
damage)
inundation
Storm Surge
Periodic inundation
Monitoring
and
Sea Level Rise
Permanent inundation
evaluation
Insufficient
Not ExposedM6�
Slightly Exposed
Moderately Exposed
Highly Exposed
information 46
No Potential Impact
Low Potential Impact
Moderate Potential
High Potential Impact
Impact
No Risk
Low Risk
High Risk47
Moderate Risk
45 A policy or plan, but also many projects, may also include non-physical components (for example monitoring and evaluation). While not
physically impacted by a climate hazard, these components may have a bearing on possible mitigation measures (in this example, the monitoring and
evaluation component may help inform the consideration of alternatives routes if impacts are frequent or severe).
46 Gather more information to improve your understanding of climate hazards and their relationship to your project.
47 For areas of high risk, projects are strongly encouraged to conduct a more detailed risk assessment and to explore measures to manage or reduce
those risks.
3) Risk reduction measures: Add to the table any mitigation measures included or considered in the
project design.
Climate Hazard
Impacts
Sensitivity of project components
Potential risk reduction
AAL
measures
Location
Physical
Non-physical
components
components
Extreme Heat
High temperatures may crack
- Higher temperature
pavement
rated pavement binder
- Financial resources for
repair and maintenance
Data
- More frequent
gathering
(vehicle/bike
inspections
Extreme Precipitation
More frequent and extensive
usage, road
Larger culverts
and Flooding
flooding may occur
surface
Flood and rainfall
damage)
retention/diversion
Coastal Flooding
Periodic or permanent
features
inundation
Monitoring
- Financial resources for
Storm Surge
Periodic inundation
and
evaluation
repair and maintenance
- Emergency detour
Sea Level Rise
Permanent inundation
protocols
- Consider alternate
routes if impacts may be
severe
Responses may range from accommodating and managing expected impacts, protecting and making
the infrastructure more resilient, to retreating and relocating the infrastructure to less impacted areas,
and there are pros and cons associated with each. For example, short term fixes like increasing repair
and maintenance budgets, establishing emergency protocols, and obtaining insurance may be
appropriate in less impacted or lower -risk situations. In other instances, more costly project
alternatives may be needed, such as elevating the road, incorporating larger drainage systems,
expanding buffer zones, or redesigning the project, such as rerouting traffic to higher elevations and
upgrading these alternative roads.
Figure 3: Adaptation Options"
TABLE I : STRATEGIC APPROACHES TO ADAPTATION
Strategic Approach Advantages Disadvantages
• Less costly • Requires monitoring, possibly frequent repairs,
I Accommodate and • More pragmatic and flexible, allows adjustment adjustments, or more rigorous operations
Maintain over time as more climate change data becomes • Necessitates design for more flexible or
available upgradeable structure
2 Harden and Protect • Proactive
• Straightforward to implement and justify
3 Relocate • Proactive
4 Accept or Abandon • No extra up -front cost
• More costly
• Assumes reasonably accurate climate forecasts
• More costly
• Sub -optimal location may decrease period of
performance or service
• Proper communications needed to inform
decision -makers and beneficiaries to expect lower
performance or service
41 USAID 2015
4) Outcome: Indicate the overall risks to the project after application of any mitigation measures
(visually represented by a color score). Include any comments, such as rationale for scoring or
other, as appropriate.
Climate
Impacts
Sensitivity of project components
Selected risk
Outcome49
C
Hazard
reduction measures
Location
Physical
Non-physical
components
components
Extreme Heat
High temperatures
- Higher temperature
may lead to
rated pavement
pavement
binder
cracking
- Financial resources
for repair and
maintenance
- More frequent
Data gathering
(vehicle/bike
inspections
Extreme
Road may be
- Larger culverts
Precipitation
impacted by more
usage, road
- Flood and rainfall
and Flooding
frequent and
surface
retention/diversion
extensive flooding
damage)
features
due to heavy
- Financial resources
rainfall
Monitoring and
evaluation
for repair and
maintenance
Coastal
Periodic or
Flooding
permanent
- Emergency detour
inundation
protocols
Storm Surge
Periodic
inundation
Sea Level Rise
Permanent
inundation
Signed
S) Emissions profile: Finally, consider the plan/policy/project's own contribution to climate change.
For example, were greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project calculated (total life cycle
emissions, not only of construction but also of operations)? Were no or low -carbon alternatives
considered in the design?
Date:
a9 The goal is to reach green or yellow for all potential risks. For larger projects, including additional columns with the subsequent risk ratings for
different alternative approaches may be useful.
Annex I: Best practice resources
This section will be updated as tools become available or tools are found useful and recommended.
If organizations require assistance in identifying resources for a particular project, policy or plan, please reach
out to the Climate Action Committee.
CLIMATE
A C T I O N
COMMITTEE
December 17, 2019
To: Climate Action Committee members and organizations
Re: Climate Risk Screening Tool
Building resilience to climate change is vital to responsible investment, planning, and decision -
making. Screening for risks from climate hazards saves everyone money in the long run,
conserving the limited budgets of our local organizations and municipalities, and protecting
private property owners and citizens from future damages.
At the August 28th, 2019 Climate Action Committee (CAC) meeting, the committee approved a
Climate Risk Screening Tool, attached. As you are aware, the Climate Action Committee is a
joint committee of the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, with broad representation.
This tool was requested by CAC member organizations, and over the last year and a half, the
CAC provided feedback on the tool prior to its final approval. The purpose of the tool is to help
planners, project developers and decision makers in identifying potential climate risks, whether it
be a physical project (e.g., infrastructure project), a planning document, or policy development.
Because comprehending best available science can be overwhelming, it summarizes the science
and key local climate hazards that may be applicable. The tool then provides a simple framework
to evaluate potential impacts on a plan, project, or policy and consider measures to reduce risks
or enhance effectiveness. The results indicate where risks may exist and where further work may
be required to reduce or manage these in line with existing best practices. It also prompts users to
consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, and in the future will include
links to best practice documents..
It is, of course, up to each member organization to determine how they wish to utilize this tool,
or elements of it. The CAC views this as a living document, and looks forward to your feedback
on your organization's application of the tool — for instance on how you have found it best
applied, how this tool could be improved, and the resources needed for its application. We plan
on capturing these lessons learned and continuing to share them with our organizations. Please
forward any such feedback to your CAC representative, and reach out if you need assistance or
have any questions on the tool.
Thank you,
Cindy Jayne
Chair, Climate Action Committee