1 FHWA Climate Change Resilience Program ◦ Assessment Framework ◦ Transportation Vulnerability Flash Flood Vulnerability project ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Background Objectives Key project questions System-wide vulnerability assessment Facility-level risk analysis Program Goals: Advance transportation climate resilience activities Assist FHWA in building the Vulnerability Framework into an Adaptation Framework http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change Funded 5 pilot projects in 2010 to test an assessment conceptual model Funded 19 pilot projects, including Minnesota, in 2013 as part of an effort to test the Framework A guide for transportation agencies to assess vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather events 3 key steps: 1. Define study assets and climate variables 2. Assess vulnerability 3. Incorporate results into decision making *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ resources_and_publications/vulnerability_assessment_framework/ “Climate change vulnerability in the transportation context is a function of a transportation system’s exposure to climate effects, sensitivity to climate effects, and adaptive capacity.” (Vulnerability Framework) Exposure- whether the asset or system is located in an area experiencing direct impacts of climate change Sensitivity - how the asset or system fares when exposed to an impact Adaptive capacity - the systems’ ability to adjust or cope with existing climate variability or future climate impacts Minnesota GO Vision & Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan identified the risk of flash flooding as a result of changing precipitation patterns due to climate change. From 1958 to 2011, the Midwest has seen 45% increase in very heavy precipitation (NOAA) Better understand the trunk highway network’s risk from flash flooding Identify cost-effect options to improve the network’s resiliency Support the development of Minnesota’s first Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) Provide feedback to FHWA on the Draft Framework General systems-level vulnerability assessment of the trunk highway network in District 1 and District 6 ◦ Timeline: September 2013 – February/March 2014 Focused facility-level adaptation assessment for specific high-risk facilities identified in the system-level assessment March 2014 – June/July 2014 How is the climate projected to change in the future? What are acceptable methods for analyzing potential risks caused by those changes? What are risks identified for future conditions? What adaptation measure can be put in place to address risks? How are decisions made on what is the most appropriate course of action? Vulnerability = Structural strength of assets (bridges, road segments, culverts) against projected climate changes (precipitation) Risk includes two components: 1. The likelihood an event (flash flooding) will occur 2. The magnitude and consequences of climate events High-level screen of trunk highway network Identify assets at risk from flash flooding ◦ Obtain information on asset condition and features ◦ Gather information on climate projection changes ◦ Rank and prioritize assets based on resiliency and projected climate changes (risk score) Risk scores will help determine where to prioritize facility level adaptation assessments SimClim Version 2.5.9.10 A proprietary software developed by Climsystems Ltd., a private firm based in New Zealand Uses AR4 climate modeling done for the IPCC Provides ◦ Downscaled maps of projected climate variables ◦ Future precipitation return periods (given a selected emissions scenario) Select weather stations in watersheds based on available data in SimClim ◦ Present-day 100-year 24-hr storm precipitation depths for each station Year 2100 projected100-year 24-hr storm precipitation depths for each station ◦ Assign weights to each watershed based on the projected % change in the 100-year 24-hr storm ◦ Assets in watersheds where the percentage change in precipitation is higher should be considered at higher risk Obtain present-day 100-year 24-hr storm precipitation depths for each station from SimClim Presently 168.29 mm. (6.63 in.) for Rochester Obtain year 2100 projected 100-year 24-hr storm precipitation depths for each station from SimClim Projected 245.73 mm. (9.67 in.) for Rochester (46% increase) Calculate a spatial average of the % change for each watershed Use the spatial average of the % change as a weight in the risk score calculation Assets in watersheds where the percentage change in precipitation is higher should be considered at higher risk Assets will be mapped according to risk scores for each District ◦ Maps will help identify which assets to include in the facility-level assessment System-wide assessment will be an example of method to screen for risks in other parts of the state 2 high-risk facilities (one per District) ◦ Determine whether (and which) adaptive actions are economically justified for each at-risk asset Select 3 climate scenarios to test asset resilience ◦ Conduct hydrology/hydraulic analysis at facilities for each climate scenario Assess for other potential risks (temperature, etc.) Develop adaptation options (design alternatives) Conduct analysis of cumulative benefit/cost values from adaption options Projection out year: Based on remaining asset design life ◦ Projections will be gathered for 20-year increments Climate model: Same as system-wide assessment Specific climate variables ◦ Precipitation Duration TBD by hydrologic location Full range of return periods (2-500 years) ◦ Temperature (TBD if needed) Scenarios will be used to measure resiliency of the assets AR5 scenarios ◦ Three climate model scenarios High – 90th percentile of projections across all emissions scenarios and models Medium – 50th percentile value Low – 10th percentile value Also include a scenario using 90% upper confidence interval limit from NOAA Atlas 14 Identify potential changes and make recommendations to the FHWA framework System-wide vulnerability assessment ◦ Maps will be used as examples of risk screening ◦ Methodology can be recreated in different parts of the state Facility-level analysis: ◦ Mitigation or adaptation strategies and design details will be listed as recommendations in the final report ◦ Cumulative benefit/cost values from adapting design changes will be an example for future planning and programming