Loading...
PC Agenda Packet 2020-03-11 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 presentation and consideration of Climate Action Workplan 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 policy direction from City Council regarding 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 27th 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 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 31st. A rough draft of the Plan should be completed by this date. o Planning Commission hearings will be conducted prior to or during May. o 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 1st 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 GHG 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 Jahnke –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 water •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 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.1 Future conditions may present a risk to both long-term economic sustainability and essential services in the region. The Climate Risk Screening Tool2 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: 1 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). 3 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. 4 Draws heavily from the North Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council (NOPRC&D) Climate Change Preparedness Plan for the North Olympic 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 Project Managers to Increase the Resilience of Toxic Cleanup Sites to the Impacts from Climate Change (November 2107); Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington –State of 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.5 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 practices7. The level of assessment undertaken for a project should be commensurate with the size and impact of the project being evaluated8. Figure 1: Exposure - sensitivity - adaptive capacity framework9 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. 7 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 Exposure •What types of hazards might the plan/project experience and to what extent Potential impact •Given the exposure to hazards, what are the potential impacts on the aspects of my policy/project design Adaptive capacity •Can aspects be modified and to what extent Risk Figure II Resilience10 10 Arup, RPA and Siemens. Toolkit for Resilient Cities - Infrastructure, Technology and Urban Planning Table I: Summary of Exposure to Local Climate Hazards This table highlights key climate hazards that may be relevant for consideration11. Climate Hazard Time frame12 Description of local hazard Examples of potential impacts Temperature Changes in Temperature Averages Current 1.3 oF increase in temperature averages in the Puget Sound region (1895-2011), with warming occurring in winter, fall, and summer. The frost-free season has lengthened, increasing by more than 30 days in the Puget Sound region from 1920 to 2014. 13 Glaciers in the Olympic Mountains have decreased by 7% in area and 31% in number from 1980 to 2009. In Washington, snow pack has decreased by 25%.14 Warmer temperatures may result in longer growing season; increased water temperatures in Puget Sound, estuaries, and freshwater bodies with impacts on salmon and other aquatic life; increased wildfire risk; decreased soil moisture; more severe drought and potentially lower water tables; reduced amount of snowpack, shorter snow season and earlier spring snowmelt, which is expected to reduce water supplies during the drier summer months; and stressed forests through disease and insect outbreaks. 15 Future In the Pacific Northwest, temperatures are projected to increase an average of 4.3-5.8 °F in all seasons.16 Changes in Temperature Extremes Current Increase in nighttime heat events. Increases in extreme air temperatures, resulting in more frequent and intense heatwaves; less frequent and intense cold events in winter; and an increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires.17 Future A slight increase in days over 90 °F (+8 days) is predicted for the Pacific Northwest, with a few more 95 °F days on the Olympic Peninsula, and a longer frost-free season (+35 days) across the Pacific Northwest.18 Rainfall Changes in Average Precipitation Current No significant change in overall amount; regional decrease in snowpack and glaciers in the Pacific Northwest. 19 A diminishing snowpack melting earlier in spring, lowering the region’s summer river flow, more severe drought, and potentially lower water tables. Future Little average annual change in overall 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 Precipitation Extremes and Flooding Current Increased frequency of extreme precipitation events in the spring in Western Washington.22 Peak spring stream flow occurring earlier in the season (up to 20 days) in many snowmelt-influenced rivers between 1948 and 2002.23 A diminishing snowpack lowering the region’s summer river flow and extending the summer drought season. Shifts in the timing and type of precipitation, creating rain on snow 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. 13 NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019 and DoE 2017 14 CIG 2019 and DoE 2017 15 NOPRC&D 2015, CIG 2019 and DoE 2017 16 NOPRC&D 2015 17 ibid 18 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 23 ibid Future A 22% increase in heavy rainfall events to about 8 days per year on average, from 2 days per year in the past. Earlier peak streamflow in rivers with a significant snowmelt component. 25 flows that scour river bottoms, flood low- land areas and increase riverine sediment transport in fall, winter, and spring. Increased landslide risk due to saturation of soil. 24 Ocean/Coast Sea Level Rise Current 0.6 feet rise in mean sea level for Port Townsend (over the last 100 years).26 Coastal flooding and inundation, coastal storm and wave-driven impacts, increased shoreline erosion and shoreline retreat, saltwater intrusion, changes in groundwater, loss and change in coastal ecosystems and habitat. Future 50% chance that mean sea level for Port Townsend will rise by ≥0.9 feet by 2050 and ≥2.4 feet by 2100. 5% chance of sea level rise of ≥1.2 feet by 2050 and ≥3.9 feet by 2100.27 See report for other probabilities. Annual Coastal Flood Elevation Current 50% chance each year that the largest coastal flooding event in Port Townsend will reach or exceed ≥2.1 feet above mean sea level. 5% chance of ≥2.8 feet.28 See report for other probabilities. Coastal flooding and inundation, saltwater inundation, increased shoreline erosion, and saltwater intrusion into rivers and groundwater. 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 ≥4.5 feet by 2100. 5% chance of ≥3.8 feet by 2050 and ≥6.1 feet by 2100. 29 See report for other probabilities. Damaging surges (combined effect of sea level rise, high tide, storm surges)30 Current The magnitude of storm surge has and will continue to increase as rising sea levels are combined with high tides and storm surges.31 An increase in the elevation, depth, or extent of flooding along marine and coastal shorelines; increased inland reach of high tides with increased flooding further inland of the coastline; saltwater intrusion further upstream in tidally influenced rivers; saltwater intrusion into groundwater; increased landslide risk or rates of erosion along coastal bluffs.32 Future Ocean Acidification Current Puget Sound is experiencing a reduction in pH; the pH of the Northeast Pacific Ocean surface waters has decreased by -0.27 from 1991–2006. 33 Increasingly corrosive waters, impacting the abundance and diversity of marine species, including key components of the food web (phytoplankton and zooplankton), salmon, and commercial fisheries and shellfish production (Pacific mackerel, Pacific hake, oysters, mussels, English sole, and yellowtail rockfish).34 Future Unknown, but increased acidification of the marine waters in Puget Sound and Pacific coast is expected.35 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). 28 NOPRC&D 2015 29 NOPRC&D 2015 30 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 34 CIG 2019 Wind Damaging winds Current The intensity and frequency of storm winds may increase, but trends are unclear.36 Wind direction and magnitude influence 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 Future Fire Wildfires38 Current Increased fire activity (the number and size of fires)39, despite this area not thought to have been historically fire prone.40 Projected increases in area burned; habitat, property and infrastructure destruction; increased soil erosion and run off; water contamination; decreased air quality. Future Increase in the frequency and intensity of wildfires due to increasing summer air temperatures and drier conditions. 41 35 DoE 2017 36 Miller, I.M, 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 40 Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington –State of Knowledge Report: Climate Change in Puget Sound (November 2015) 41 DoE 2017 and Information from Climate Impacts Group 2015 Table II: Risk Matrix Climate Hazard Impacts Sensitivity of project components Selected risk reduction measures Outcome Comments Location Physical components Non-physical 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 42 The project described, including impacts and sensitivity, are for illustrative purposes only. 43 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 components Non-physical components45 Extreme Heat High temperatures may crack pavement Data gathering (vehicle/bike usage, road surface damage) Monitoring and evaluation Extreme Precipitation and Flooding More frequent and extensive flooding may occur Coastal Flooding Periodic or permanent inundation Storm Surge Periodic inundation Sea Level Rise Permanent inundation Insufficient information46 Not Exposed
 No Potential Impact No Risk Slightly Exposed Low Potential Impact Low Risk Moderately Exposed Moderate Potential Impact Moderate Risk Highly Exposed High Potential Impact High Risk47 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 measures Location Physical components Non-physical components Extreme Heat High temperatures may crack pavement Data gathering (vehicle/bike usage, road surface damage) Monitoring and evaluation - Higher temperature rated pavement binder - Financial resources for repair and maintenance - More frequent inspections Extreme Precipitation and Flooding More frequent and extensive flooding may occur - Larger culverts - Flood and rainfall retention/diversion features - Financial resources for repair and maintenance - Emergency detour protocols - Consider alternate routes if impacts may be severe Coastal Flooding Periodic or permanent inundation Storm Surge Periodic inundation Sea Level Rise Permanent inundation 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 Options48 48 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 Hazard Impacts Sensitivity of project components Selected risk reduction measures Outcome49 Comments Location Physical components Non-physical components Extreme Heat High temperatures may lead to pavement cracking Data gathering (vehicle/bike usage, road surface damage) Monitoring and evaluation - Higher temperature rated pavement binder - Financial resources for repair and maintenance - More frequent inspections Extreme Precipitation and Flooding Road may be impacted by more frequent and extensive flooding due to heavy rainfall - Larger culverts - Flood and rainfall retention/diversion features - Financial resources for repair and maintenance - Emergency detour protocols Coastal Flooding Periodic or permanent inundation Storm Surge Periodic inundation Sea Level Rise Permanent inundation 5) 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? Signed ________________________________________________________ Date: ________________ 49 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. 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