addressing climate change adaptation in regional transportation plans

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Addressing Climate Change Adaptation in Regional Transportation PlansA Guide for California MPOs and RTPAswas conducted to support a study from the California Climate Change Center(CCCC) conducted by the Pacific Institute (2009). The data developed for thisstudy included current conditions 100-year flood extents at year 2000, andprojected inundation extents with 1.4 meters (4.6 feet) of sea-level rise under A2emissions, which was the only scenario analyzed for that study. Additionally,this study included estimates of cliff and dune erosion by 2100 under A2emissions. Geospatial data layers generated for the study by the Pacific Institutefor current and projected inundation extents for the full California coast andareas vulnerable to dune and cliff erosion from Santa Barbara to the northernstate boundary are available from the Pacific Institute’s GIS data page(http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/data/index.htm).Interpreting and Using Sea‐Level Rise DataThe data available from the Pacific Institute includes four geospatial layers that reflectpresent and future conditions inundation extents along the full length of the Californiacoastline, and vulnerability zones for dune and cliff erosion from Santa Barbara to thenorthern State boundary. The Pacific Institute created or modified these layers for astudy, titled The Impacts of Sea‐Level Rise on the California Coast (Heberger et al.,2009). In brief, the layers were constructed as follows:Current conditions 100‐year flood inundation (year 2000) –100‐year floodelevations were aggregated for the full California coastline using published datafrom the FEMA’s digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRM), and gaps were filledin using local information and engineering judgment. These elevations wereprojected against topographic data to create flood hazard extents for the 100‐year coastal flood.Projected 100‐year flood inundation under 1.4 meters of sea‐level rise (year2100) – Total water levels for the 100‐year flood elevations for future conditionswere estimated based on GCM output of water levels and wave heights modifiedusing local information on wave refraction and transformation.Dune erosion hazard zone – The dune erosion hazard zone was estimated usingthe total water levels projected for 2100, and historic erosion rates published bythe USGS. The encroachment of the hazard zone by year 2100 is a function ofsea‐level rise, long‐term historic shoreline change rates, and erosion from the100‐year storm event.Cliff erosion hazard zones – The extent of cliff erosion hazards was estimatedusing historic cliff erosion rates and the relative increase in time that total waterlevels exceed the backshore elevation due to sea‐level rise.Source: Heberger et al., 2009.Note: A technical summary of the data sources and computational methods applied for generating the climate datacan be requested separately through Caltrans.10-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Addressing Climate Change Adaptation in Regional Transportation PlansA Guide for California MPOs and RTPAsSelect Climate ScenariosDue to the uncertainty inherent in climate projections, it is advisable to considera range of emissions scenarios and GCMs. Two emissions scenarios—A2(medium-high) and B1 (low)—have been widely applied in statewide analyses ofclimate impacts in California. These scenarios provide the range of climatescenarios which MPOs and RTPAs should consider when evaluating the range ofpotential climate conditions. Of the two scenarios evaluated by California forstatewide climate assessments and used in this guide, the A2 scenario is the morerealistic choice for decision-makers to use for climate adaptation planning.According to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, “the world hasfollowed a ‘business as usual’ emissions pathway, which most closely resemblesthe A2 scenario.”A2 versus B1: Which Scenario Should I Use?Two GHG emissions scenarios – referencedas A2 and B1 – were created by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) and used in this guide. These are bothscenarios evaluated by California forstatewide climate assessments. Eachscenario leads to a projection of possibleemissions levels based on population growthrate, economic development, and otherfactors. Ultimately, the effect on climatechange depends on the amount and the rateof accumulation of heat‐trapping gases inthe atmosphere that these scenariossuggest.Emissions ScenariosThe A2 (medium-high) and B1 (low) emissionsscenarios reflect potential reasonable range ofclimate conditions (Cayan et al., 2012). Climatedata for individual stressors and analysis years areprovided for both the A2 and B1 emissionsscenarios. It is preferred for planners to use the A2scenario from an impacts and adaptation point ofview, as it is the more aggressive of the twoprobable scenarios.Projecting potential climate trends and extremesrequires first establishing future scenarios ofpopulation, economic, and technologicalconditions that will influence future climatepatterns. Due to the high level of uncertainty inthe evolution of these factors, a series of qualitativestorylines describing the evolution of possibletrajectories of heat-trapping GHG emissions weredeveloped by the International Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC) 18 to guide climate change modelingefforts (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC’s (2000) specialreport on emissions scenarios (SRES) provides sixscenario groups of plausible global emissionspathways, with no assigned probabilities ofoccurrence. Two of these scenarios, A2 and B1 are often selected to represent,respectively, medium-high and relatively low emissions projections (Cayan et al.,2012). These emissions scenarios represent the world as follows:Of the two options provided, the A2 scenariois the more realistic choice for decisionmakersto use for climate adaptationplanning. Generally, the B1 scenario mightbe most appropriately viewed as a version ofa “best case” or “policy” scenario foremissions, while A2 is more of a status quoscenario incorporating incrementalimprovements.18 Unless otherwise stated, all references to the IPCC report on emission scenarios refer tothe Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 10-9
Page 1:
Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
Page 7:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
Page 65: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
Page 157: appendix b reportState-of-the-Pract
Page 161 and 162:
State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181:
Page 185 and 186:
C A L I F O R N I AADAPTATIONPLANNI
Page 188 and 189:
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 190 and 191:
Adaptation Planning Guide - Advisor
Page 192 and 193:
List of Tables (cont’d.)Table 6.
Page 194 and 195:
Climate Impact RegionsThe APG is or
Page 196 and 197:
APGSTART HERE:PLANNING FOR ADAPTIVE
Page 198 and 199:
What are the designated climate imp
Page 200 and 201:
CA Climate Adaptation Planning Guid
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
• Selected Demographic Data. Sele
Page 208 and 209:
Cal-Adapt ProjectionsTable 1. Summa
Page 210 and 211:
Selected Infrastructure and Regiona
Page 212 and 213:
illnesses due to air pollution resu
Page 214 and 215:
Additional Resources• Sea level r
Page 216 and 217:
Cal-Adapt ProjectionsTable 5. Summa
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
frequency can harm forests. Large i
Page 222 and 223:
Bay Area RegionCounties: Alameda, C
Page 224 and 225:
the Sacramento and San Joaquin rive
Page 226 and 227:
Table 12. Selected Population Data
Page 228 and 229:
Sea level rise is also expected to
Page 230 and 231:
Additional Resources• Public Heal
Page 232 and 233:
Cal-Adapt ProjectionsTable 13. Summ
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Table 16. Selected Population Data
Page 238 and 239:
As with crops, climate change impac
Page 240 and 241:
Additional Resources• Wildfire Re
Page 242 and 243:
elevations, increased static levee
Page 244 and 245:
The ecosystem functions of the Delt
Page 246 and 247:
Setting and HistoryThe California D
Page 248 and 249:
The islands in the lower Bay-Delta
Page 250 and 251:
Some of the questions that should b
Page 252 and 253:
Southern Central Valley RegionCount
Page 254 and 255:
Biophysical CharacteristicsThe west
Page 256 and 257:
The crops produced are varied and i
Page 258 and 259:
Communities in this region should e
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
have the resources to prepare for,
Page 266 and 267:
Additional Resources• Sea Level R
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Timber practices have also had ecos
Page 274 and 275:
Southeast Sierra RegionCounties: Al
Page 276 and 277:
Biophysical CharacteristicsThe sout
Page 278 and 279:
ultimately result in reduced water
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
particular concern are populations
Page 286 and 287:
Additional Resources• Sea Level R
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
industry around Big Bear. As there
Page 294 and 295:
California Natural Resources Agency
show all

addressing climate change adaptation in regional transportation plans

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?