Infrastructure damage

For additional products from the Hawaiian Islands Climate Synthesis Project, please visit http://bit.ly/HawaiiClimate.

This report summarizes the results of a two-day adaptation planning workshop for the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests as part of their forest plan revision process. The workshop focused on identifying adaptation options for eight key resource areas, including forested vegetation, non-forested vegetation, wildlife, hydrology, fisheries, recreation, cultural/heritage values, and ecosystem services. The report includes a general overview of the workshop methodology and provides a suite of possible adaptation strategies and actions for each key resource area. Adaptation actions were linked with the climate-related vulnerabilities they help to ameliorate as well as the direct/indirect effects they may have on other resource areas.

Using the framework of local comprehensive planning and the Washington State Comprehensive Plan requirements under the Growth Management Act, this guidance was developed to enable understanding and inclusion of anticipated climate change impacts into the local long-range planning by Puget Sound government officials and citizens.

This resource intends to enable your community to incorporate climate-informed decisions into your local comprehensive planning. Users should be able to find relevant local climate change information (including projections), formulate questions to help evaluate the implications of climate change on any element of community planning, and make climatesavvy goals, policies, and implementation decisions that will generate the best long-term outcomes for your community — its businesses, schools, services, recreation, ecosystems and individuals.

Over the past decade adaptation has been burgeoning in the United States. While the federal agencies have been part of this for the past several years, they have not always been the primary leaders. What are non-federal entities aiming to do in light of the changes expected in DC? Will their course change or be unaltered?

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPAs) are required to adopt and submit an updated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to the California Transportation Commission (Commission) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) every four or five years depending on air quality attainment within the region. Regional transportation improvement projects proposed to be funded, in whole or in part, in the State Transportation Improvement Program must be included in an adopted RTP.

The Commission is authorized under statute to prescribe study areas for analysis and evaluation by regional transportation agencies and guidelines for the preparation of RTPs. The Commission, in consultation with Caltrans and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) is also required to maintain guidelines for travel demand models used in the development of RTPs by MPOs.

On April 7, 2010, the Commission adopted revisions to the RTP Guidelines . The revisions were prepared through the work of an Advisory Committee representing MPOs, RTPAs, federal, state and local governments, organizations knowledgeable in the creation and use of travel demand models, and organizations concerned with the impacts of transportation investments on communities and the environment. The Commission appreciates the members of the Advisory Committee for their dedication to develop guidelines that promote the successful implementation of statutory requirements as well as consistency through an integrated, statewide approach to the transportation planning process.

The guidelines reflect recent revisions to address the planning requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 375 (SB 375, Steinberg, Statutes of 2008) and other planning practices. SB 375 targets regional greenhouse gas emission reductions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks through changes in land use and transportation development patterns. To achieve these changes, the law encourages MPOs to think differently about how communities are designed. As a result, MPOs, in partnership with local governments, are now required to develop a sustainable communities strategy as part of the transportation planning process for inclusion in the RTP. The sustainable communities strategy should demonstrate the land use and transportation measures that will be used to meet the region's greenhouse gas emission reduction target established by ARB. The inclusion of the sustainable communities strategy as a part of the RTP represents a significant change to an MPOs traditional transportation planning process by adding the strategy as a new element and requiring internal consistency among all elements of the RTP.

In addition to addressing SB 375, the guidelines set forth a uniform transportation planning framework throughout the state that identifies federal and state requirements for the development of RTPs. However, the guidelines are intended to provide flexibility and options for transportation decision makers recognizing geographic diversity and complexity. The development of sustainable communities strategies in the planning process is a critical step to a better future. The Commission will continue to utilize whatever resources are available to us to help the regions develop transportation investments consistent with these strategies.

Section 1. (Effective from passage) Not later than February 15, 2014, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and The University of Connecticut shall, in accordance with section 11-4a of the general statutes, report to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to the environment on the joint efforts of said department and university to establish a Connecticut Center for Coasts. Such report shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. A detailed description of the mission for such a center that shall include, at a minimum, conducting research, outreach and education projects to guide the development of technologies and regulatory provisions that increase the protection of ecosystems, coastal properties and other lands and attributes of the state that are subject to the effects of rising sea levels,
2. the proposed governance of such center, including appointment of a center director, establishment of an advisory board and the requisite staffing level for such center,
3. a plan for the center's performance of:

• (A) Mapping exercises to assess and visualize key characteristics of shoreline resiliency, such as shoreline changes,
• (B) pilot-scale engineering and impact assessment studies,
• (C) consensus building efforts to determine state-wide uniform guidelines for planning and development purposes, including the expected rate of sea level rise for the next one hundred years,
• (D) ways to develop state-wide, science-based planning and management alternatives,
• (E) development in science and information-based outreach and technology transfer programs for state and local agencies and officials involved in planning and development,
• (F) an assessment of soft shore protection strategies in Long Island Sound and the development of instructional guides for the use of such soft shore protection strategies,
• (G) a comprehensive coastal infrastructure inventory and risk assessment,
• (H) an analysis of the impact of seawalls in urban and rural communities,
• (I) the development of uniform, state-wide models that predict inundation flood scenarios under slow, constant sea level rise and under storm surges,
• (J) projects that lead to the development of rapid storm damage assessment technology,
• (K) developing design guidelines for the construction and repair of seawalls, and
• (L) developing tools for determining appropriate shore protection strategies and providing coastal protection information to a diverse range of end users,

  4. a listing of the existing university and department resources that will be utilized in the performance of the center's responsibilities and a description of the specific ways in which each resource will be used to perform such responsibilities, and (5) the sources and amounts of funding that the department and university, either jointly or individually, intend to secure or secured for the purpose of establishing such center.