5-13-16 MASTER Climate Change Series Part 1

8/17/2019 5-13-16 MASTER Climate Change Series Part 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/5-13-16-master-climate-change-series-part-1 1/177

EBC Climate Change Program Series:

Part One – The Science, Modeling,

and Implications of ClimateChange for Coastal New England



Ruth Silman

Chair, EBC Climate Change & Air Committe

Partner, Nixon Peabody LLP

Welcome

Environmental Business Council of New England

Energy Environment Economy



Scott TurnerProgram Chair and Moderator

Director of Planning

Nitsch Engineering



Introduction





The Science of

Changing Storms and

Sea Levels



Kerry Emanuel

Professor of Atmospheric Science

MIT



Climate Change Impacts on Storm

Frequency and Intensity



Climate Change Impa

Storm Frequency and Int

Kerry Emanuel

Lorenz Center, MIT



Program

Brief overview of New Englandhurricanes

How will New England hurricanes be

affected by global warming?

How should we assess hurricane risk?



Storm Surge

Inland Flooding from R



Limitations of a strictly statistical approac

to hurricane risk assessment

>50% of all normalized U.S. hurricane damage causedby top 8 events, all category 3, 4 and 5

>90% of all damage caused by storms of category 3 an

greater

Category 3,4 and 5 events are only 13% of total

landfalling events; only 30 since 1870Landfalling storm statistics are inadequate for

assessing hurricane risk



MIT Risk Assessment Approach:

Step 1: Seed each ocean basin with a very largenumber of weak, randomly located cyclones

Step 2: Cyclones are assumed to move with thelarge scale atmospheric flow in which they areembedded, plus a correction for the earth’s rotationand sphericity

Step 3: Run detailed but fast computer model foreach cyclone, and note how many achieve at leasttropical storm strength

Step 4: Using the small fraction of surviving eventsdetermine storm statistics

Details: Emanuel et al., Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc , 2008





Wind Swath



Accumulated Rain



Return Periods



Storm Surge Simulation

SLOSH mesh

~ 103 m

ADCIRC

~ 102

Battery

ADCIRC model

(Luettich et al. 1992 )

SLOSH model

(Jelesnianski et al. 1992 )

ADCIRC m

~ 10 m

(Colle et al. 2



Surge Return Periods for The Battery, New York

Sandy



Taking Climate Change IntoAccount



Hurricanes Passing within 150 km of Boston

Downscaled from 5 climate models



Surge Risk, Boston Harbor



b k h



Boston Harbor Surge Risk with 1 meter

Sea Level Rise



Boston Rain Risk



Boston with 1.5 m storm surge



From: American Climate Prospectus Economic Risks in the United States

Sea level risealone

Sea level rise +

changing storms

Summary



Summary

New England history is too short, sparse,

and imperfect to estimate hurricane risk

Better estimates can be made by

downscaling hurricane activity from

climatological or global model output

New England hurricanes clearly vary with

climate and there is a decided risk that

hurricane threats will increase over this

century



Spares







Wind speed and direction at Logan Airport



Christopher Little

Staff Scientist,

Atmospheric and Environmental

Research, Inc. (AER)



Sea Level Rise



Predicting 21st century sea leve

scientific basis and key challenges

Dr. Chris Little

EBCNE talk

M

20

Dotson ice shelf front, Antarctica

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.

Research and Development Division – Oceanography Group

On mePerspective…



II. Sea le

rise (S

assessm

…On me

I. Ice sheet-

ocean

interactions

Sea level 101

21st century SLR projections

Why the ice sheet contributio

remains uncertain

p

…On this talk

How climate influences sea level (short version)



How climate influences sea level (short version)

Stammer et al. 2013

Ocean warming

and expansionFreshwater

exchange with land-

based ice

The cryosphere is



the part of Earth’s

surface that is

frozen

10% of land

Land based ice locks up a lot of freshwater



Land-based ice locks up a lot of freshwater

~1.5 feet~200 feet

IPCC AR5 2013

Sea level change is local!



Sea level change is local!

Freshwater ex

Ice sheet m

change

Glacier mas

Land water

Oceanograph

Density cha

Mass

rearrangem

Solid-earth

Isostatic adj

Subsidence

How do we observe sea level change?



How do we observe sea level change?

Tide gauges

From 1800’s (varies)

Relative, local, sea level

(includes land motion)

Even earlier: proxies

(corals, highstands, etc)

Altimetry

Since early 1990’s

Absolute, global, sea le

Tide gauges reveal a wide variation in sea lev



trends, even over short distances

Subsidence and (accelerating?) dynamic sea level rise

Norfolk

~ 17 inches/c

Narragansett

~ 10 inches/c

Global mean

~ 6.7 inches/c

M e a n s e a l e v e l r e l a t i v e t o 1 8 8 0 ( c e n t i m e t e r s )

Modified from Kopp 2013

Altimeters show



even larger

spatial

variability over

the past 20years

Altimetry-derived

linear trends

(mm/yr 1993-2010)

http://www.esa.int/ESA

Gl b l l locean warming ~ 30-40 %



Global sea level

trends

g

glaciers melting ~ 30%

ice sheets: recent increase to >25%

Hay et al 2015



in past 20 years…

~ 3 cm of sea level rise from ice

= 10800 km3 of ice (~3 mile thick block of ice inside 495)

= 24 billion tons of ice

IPCC AR5 2013

Projecting future sea level



change

S

e a l e v e l

Projections require models of climate



and the response of each component

Vertical land

motion model

Global climate

models

Concentrations

Emissions

IPCC Fifth Assessment (AR5) SLR projections



“only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, if initiated,

could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially …but there is medium

confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise

during the 21st century.”

Intergovernmental Pan

Climate Change AR

Summary for Policyma

cha

hS

2046-2065 2081-2100~ emissions

scenario

Mid-century:

7-15 inchesEnd of century:

10-33 inches

Probabilistic global mean sea level projections (RCP 8.5)



B

est

~3*

M e a n s e a l e v e l r e l a t i v e

t o 2 0 0 0

( c e n t i m e t e r s )

99%

range

66%

range

5% chance = >4 feet

1% chance = ~6 feet*

Kopp, R.E., D.J. Rasmussen, R.M. Horton, C.M. Little, J.X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer, B.H. Strauss and C. Tebaldi, Earth’s Future (2014

Probabil istic 21st and 22nd century sea-level rise projections at a global network of tide gauge sites.

2000-2100 local sea level (LSL) projections



Median 2100 LSL change (m)

(RCP 8.5 2000-2100 global mean =0.78 m)

( ) p j

Juneau = 35 inch FALL!

Galveston= 50 inch rise Norfolk = 42 inch ris

San Francisco = 30 inch ris



The uncertain future of ice



sheets

The ice sheet contribution to sea level



~56 m

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Grounding Lines

“Dynamic” = chan

in ice flow across

grounding line

“Surface mass

balance” = snowfall

and surface melting

Ice



NSIDC, Goldberg et al. 2009

11% of the ice sheet i

floating!

~45%/55%

calving/melting; 50%

from 8% of area Exert resistive stress

grounded ice



As we approached theland … we perceiveda low white line

…proving at length tobe a perpendicularcliff of ice, betweenone hundred and fiftyand two hundred feetabove the level of thesea, perfectly flat andlevel at the top, andwithout any fissures

or promontories on itseven seaward face.

(J. C. Ross, Voyageto the Southern Seas, vol i,, p. 117)



Current ice loss is mostly dynamic, and triggered by o



Thinning Thickening Pritchard 20

Pine Island Glacier is thinning

up to 30 feet per year

Ice shelves experience abrupt breakup events



Larsen B ice shelf

1/31/02 – 3/7/02

NSIDC, Scambos et al. 2004

2-8x speedup in

1 year in upstream glaciers!

2002

2008

1995

Breakups

Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) amplifies initial climtrigger



GroundLine

Retre

Thinning

Increasedice flux

Cross-section (plan view)

IPCC AR5 Chapter

trigger

Bed deepens inland

Ice shelf

breakup

(or thinning)

W(h)ither Antarctica?



Ice shelves are subject to

abrupt collapse

Triggers are poorly

understood Models do not represent

detailed ice-ocean

processes or fracture

Marine ice sheet instability

is possible over large partsof Antarctica

Projection

technique

(RCP8.5)

2100 95%

SLR fro

Antarctica

AR5(lognorm fit) ~10

Expert

elicitation33

Model-

based0-30+

Semi-

empirical 7-26

We are working on frameworks that allows us to manage

this uncertainty in a transparent, updateable manner

Summary: the 21st century



Very high confidence in at least a continuation of current trends

Regional risk varies, both in magnitude and source

Even apparently “small” changes in mean sea level increase flood risk

Upper bounds remain uncertain and are a strong function of the risk toleran

the decision-maker The possibility of small-scale “threshold” behaviors in Antarctica underlie the tail of sea level rise

projections

Sea level rise (SLR) risk assessment requires a probabilistic, local, inclusiv

and updateable framework

Expected # flood events in

Boston for different design

lifetimes (RCP 8.5)

(historical storm surge

return periods remain

constant)

2001-2050 2001-2100

Flood

event No SLR SLR No SLR SLR

1 in 10 5 19 10 64

1 in 100 0.5 1.6 1 17

And beyond…



There is a substantial long-term

sea level commitment (~25 feet

for 3.5°C of warming)…

…that is lessened with low

cumulative emissions

Climate Central

Thanks:



Paul Hall, Scott Turner, EBCNE

Collaborators

NOAA/GFDL

Antarctica’s

bed



Bed Elevation (m)

deepens

inland





Glaciers do their

own thing, but

are almostall receding…

Probabilistic LSL projections



Sea level

components

Probabilistic models Monte-Carlo samp

Continuous ice

sheet distributions

with “tail”

Local probabilistic

representation



New York Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) and Structures of Coastal Resi l ience (SCR) projects

And, for the long-term, emissions reductions



S e a l e v e l

c o

m m i t m e n t ( m )

0

2

4

6

8

2012 2050 2

Year

Modified from Strauss

(2013)

realize

RCP 4.5

commitme

RCP8.5

commitment

This talk has

focused on the

“realized” sea level

change by 2100

There is a

substantial long-

term commitment

on higheremissions

pathways

95th

2000(RCPNortheast US

projections



Observations Projections

95th

140-1

5th

40-6

P=Providence

B=Battery (NYC)

A=Atlantic City

N=Norfolk

Shading =

90% range

Line = median

projection

What can be done?



Science: observation and model studies into breakup pr

and Antarctic circulation

Science/Policy: Develop projection and risk assessmen

frameworks

Build resilient, risk-aware coastlines

Developed and less-developed countries

Policy: Remove perverse incentives

Which ice sheets lose mass matters



Greenland Antarctica



Local effects 2: vertical land motion



Are inherently local and result

from many different factors –

earthquakes, anthropogenic and

natural subsidence

In NYC, dominated by GIA

http://xenon.colorado.edu

Sella 2006

Tide gauge evidence for greater-than-global mean SLR

NE heightened

http://xenon.colorado.edu/

http://xenon.colorado.edu/



g

Unfortunately the news is not good (generally) f

Ongoing subsidence (will continue)

Ongoing dynamic sea level rise (may continue)





Modeling of Coastal

Impacts

The North Atlantic Coast

Comprehensive Study



Roselle HennDeputy Director, National Planning Cente

for Coastal Storm Risk Management,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers



Comprehensive Study

North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study:Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk



US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG ®

US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG ®

Roselle Henn, Deputy Director

National Planning Center for

Coastal Storm Risk ManagementU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

13 May 2016

Outline

Background



Collaboration and Alignment

Findings

Outcomes

Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework

Technical Products Supporting the Framewor

Opportunities for Coastal Resilience Integration

Summary

74

Background Sandy originated in the

Caribbean on 22 October 20



75

National Hurricane Center 12 Feb 2013

Caribbean on 22 October 20

Severely impacted Jamaica,

Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Repu

and Cuba, reaching the USA

Atlantic coastline 29 Octobe

In the USA, effects extended

from Florida to Maine, and w

to Great Lakes

States of New Jersey, New Y

and Connecticut greatlyimpacted; NY-NJ Harbor

devastated by catastrophic

Background: Sandy’s Impact in the USA Human

159 lives lost



500,000 mandatory evacuations

20,000 temporary shelter

Extensive community dislocations

Economic

$65B in damages

650,000 houses damaged/destroyed

Infrastructure: Loss off

Telecommunications, transit

Fuel, power

*US Army Corps of Engineers – Partnered projects

credited with an estimated

$1.9B in damages prevented

76

Background: Public Law 113-2Disaster Relief Appropriations Act 2013

Total Appropriation $47.9B



77

76%

14%

9%

1% 0%

Construction of flood risk reduction projects

Beach repair and restoration

Repair of navigation channels and structures

Investigations and studies

General expenses

{

pp p $HUD $15.20BDOT $12.42BDHS $11.47B

Background: North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive S

StatusFEMA H. Sandy Impact Data



Ongoing Sandy Program

Implementation

29 Jan 2013 PL 113-2: … theSecretary shall conduct a

comprehensive study to address

flood risks of vulnerable coastal

populations in areas that were a

by Hurricane Sandy within the

boundaries of the North Atlantic

Division of the Corps…

28 Jan 2015 Final Report pubreleased

78

FEMA H. Sandy Impact Data

Background: North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive S Comprehensive plan to address vulnerable c

communities



Formalized and consistent approach/framefor more detailed, site specific coastal evalu

Integrates state-of-the-science techniques acollaboration

Equips and links a broad audience and all legovernment with data, tools, and otherstakeholders to make INFORMED coastal rismanagement decisions

NACCS isnot

: A decision document authorizing design andconstruction

A NEPA document evaluating impacts of any spesolution

A USACE-only application

79

www.nad.usace.army.mil/CompStudy

Collaboration and Alignment Agency, Interagency, and Tribal Collaboration

USACE High Level Senior Governance Team/Enterprise Projec

http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/CompStudy






g / p j

Delivery Team/Strong Project Management

Interagency correspondence/technical working meetings/pan

discussions

Subject Matter Experts embedded in team Federal Register notices and public website

Interagency Webinar Collaboration Series (2013-2014)

Roll Out Webinars for Regional Partners (2 & 9 Feb 2015)

Alignment

President’s Climate Action Plan Sandy Task Force “Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy”

OMB Legislative Review Memorandum with Federal Agencies

Sandy Regional Infrastructure Resilience Coordination

80

FindingsShared responsibility of all levels of Government and

partnerships



p p

Rethink approaches to adapting to risk

Resilience and sustainability must consider a combinatioand blend of measures

81

NNBF NATURAL AND NATURE-BASED FEATURES

PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES

STRUCTURAL MEASURESNONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES

Full Array of Coastal Storm Risk Management Measures

Managing coastal storm risk is ashared responsibility

The Framework is:

Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework



The Framework is: A 9-step process

Customizable for any coastalarea or watershed and otherregions

Repeatable at state and localscales

Who/what is exposed to flood risk?

Where is the flood risk?

What are the appropriate strategiesand measures to reduce flood risk?

What is the relative cost of aparticular strategy compared to the

anticipated risk reduction? What data are available to make risk

informed decisions?

What is the residual risk?

82

Coastal Storm Risk Management FrameworkFuture Scenarios and Flooding Exposure

Population/Infrastructure Density



83

* USACE Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-212** Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario

Socioeconomic Factors and Trends

Ecosystems Adaptive Capacity

Population/Infrastructure Density

Sea level change* evaluated for the years 2018, 2068, 2100** and 211

Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework Risk Management Measures

Structural

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/USACE_Coastal_Risk_Reduction_final_CWTS_2013-3.pdf



Storm surge barriers

Levees, breakwaters, shoreline

stabilization

Natural and Nature-Based Features(e.g., beaches and dunes, living shorelines,

wetlands, oyster reefs, SAV restoration)

Non-Structural (e.g., floodproofing,

acquisition and relocation, flood warning, etc.)

Programmatic (e.g., floodplain management, land use planning,

State/municipal policy, natural resources, surface water

management, education, flood insurance programs, etc.)

84

Technical Products Supporting the FrameworkMultiple products, planning tools, and models were developed to assist decision m

as they Implement the Coastal Storm Risk Management Framework

http://www.corpsclimate.us/docs/USACE_Coastal_Risk_Reduction_final_CWTS_2013-3.pdf



85

Focus on storm winds, waves and water levels for both tropi

Technical Products Supporting the FrameworkRegional Storm Suite Modeling



, p

and extra-tropical storm events

Provides for a robust, standardized approach to establishingthe risk of coastal communities to future occurrences of sto

events

86

Two-Phased Approach



• First Phase: SLR/CC Initial Vulnerability Assessment (Lead: Engle)

– New analysis based on existing data

• USACE/NOAA SLC scenarios

• USACE statistical re-analysis of NOAA historical water level measurements

• Initial Vulnerability Assessment using modified CESL tool

– Preliminary risk assessment

– Complete for Draft NACCS, October 2013

• Second Phase: ERDC CSTORM (Lead: Bocamazo, Curtis)

– Modern, risk-based storm climatology: Joint Probability Method (JPM) – Future SLR incorporated into modeling

– Completely updated future storm risk with SLR

Measurement of direct physical effects and their econo

Technical Products Supporting the FrameworkEconomic Depth-Damage Estimation Tool



Measurement of direct physical effects and their econoconsequences to create depth-damage functions

Assessment of loss of life to estimate depth-fatality

relationships for coastal storms

Development of depth-emergency cost and infrastructdamage relationships

Estimation of second and third order effects (e.g., loss o

labor, economic losses from of power/fuel shortages, me

and physical health effects)

88

Natural and Nature-Based Features Technical Products Supporting the Framewor



Identify storm resilie

features

Provide tools for ben

evaluation and calculat

of resilience

Integrate nature-bas

features in coastal riskmanagement systems

89



9 North Atlantic Coast

Focus Areas (NAC FA)

USACE-Sp

Design

Constru

NAC FA New Feasibility Studies

Cost-Shared with Non-Federal Sponsor; Managed as a Regional

Program building on NACCS Findings, Outcomes, and Products

Opportunities: Coastal Resilience Integration

NACCS Products: Geospatial Database; Numerical Modeling of Extreme Water Levels;

E i D th D F ti E i t l d C lt l R C diti



State

Implementation

of Ongoing & Planned

Reduction

91

Economic Depth-Damage Functions; Environmental and Cultural Resources Conditions

Report; Conceptual Regional Sediment Budget; Vulnerability, Resilience,

Natural and Nature-Based Features Assessment and Metric Development

Strategic

Integration of

Coastal

Investments

2013 2015 2020

Ongoing USACE Activities

*Vulnerability Assessments,

Resilience and Climate Change

Adaptation Planning

*Technical Assistance to States

and installations; Public-Private

Partnership initiatives

*Limited & General Reevaluation

Reports

*Continuing Authorities Program

and Operation & Maintenance

activities

*Flood Control and Coastal

Emergency projects

*National Hurricane Program

Regional Partnerships & Collaboration

Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Department of Interior (DOI)

Regional Ocean Councils (States)

Regional Planning Bodies (Federal, States,

and Tribes)

Sandy Regional Infrastructure

Resilience Coordination (SRIRC)

Implementation in other Coastal Regions

Coastal Texas Feasibility Study

South Atlantic Division

North Atlantic Coast

Comprehensive

Study

"Hurricane Sandy brought to light the reality that coastal

storms are intensifying and that sea-level and climate

Summary



92

storms are intensifying and that sea level and climate

change will only heighten the vulnerability of coastal

communities. Coastal storm risk management is a

shared responsibility, and we believe there should beshared tools used by all decision makers to assess riskand identify solutions. This report provides those tools.”

Brig. Gen. Kent D. Savre

Commanding General

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersNorth Atlantic Division

Sea Level Rise & Storm Modeling

in Massachusetts



Kirk BosmaTeam Leader/Coastal Engineer,

Woods Hole Group



EBC Climate Change Program Series – Part One

May 13, 2016



Preparing for Sea Level

Rise and Climate Change

at a Community and

Individual Asset Scale

Kirk F. Bosma, P.E.

[email protected]

Project Overview

The Central Artery is a critical link in regional transportation and a vitally



Project Team:

Kirk Bosma, Woods Hole Group, Inc. Ellen Douglas, Paul Kirshen, and Chris Watson, UMass BostonSteven Miller and Katherin McArthur, MassDOT

1. What is the probabilityof flooding?

2. What is vulnerableand what is thepriority?

3. What interventions areavailable and what isthe plan?

y g p yimportant asset in the Boston metropolitan area.

Probability of flooding options



• FEMA is only backward looking• Only considers “100-year” storm • Region I does not use dynamic modeling• Transect based analysis




• Inundation maps based on standard “bathtub” model donot reflect dynamic nature of coastal flooding

• Does not account for joint flooding conditions• Does not include effects of infrastructure (e.g., dams)• Does not account for tides




• Worst possible scenario for emergency planning (worststorm at MHW)…no associated risk planning

• Coarse modeling domain results in local inaccuracies• Does not include impacts of waves• Errors are relatively large (+/- 20%)• Just hurricanes

Why existing maps were not good enough



– Includes relevant physical processes (tides, storm surge, wind, wavewave setup, river discharge, sea level rise, future climate scenarios)

Hi-Res Hydrodynamic Modeling



p, g , , )

• Currents• Storm Surge• Tides

• Water Levels• Winds• SLR• Discharge• Infrastructure

• Waves• Wave Setup

Charles RiverDam

Amelia Earhart Dam

Regional Grid Requirements

Grid covers a large regional area (North Atlantic) to capture large-scale storm(hurricane nor’easter) dynamics



(hurricane, nor easter) dynamics.

Unstructured Grid

Varying resolution with high resolutioni f i t t



in areas of interest

Boston Grid



Focus Areas



Using Projections to Bracket Risk

X

4



Parris et al. (2012)

U. S. National ClimateAssessment.

X4

X3

X2

X1

• 3a

2100

• 2a

2070

1a•

2030

X52050

Storm Climatology - Hurricanes Monte Carlo simulations,

using a large statisticallyrobust set of storms



(Emanuel, et al., 2006) and aphysics based approach

Present and future climatechange scenarios

Simulates storms (bothhurricane and nor’easter)combined with SLR andprecipitation

• A Large Statistically robset of storms.

• No need to determine joprobabilities.

Model Calibration – Blizzard of ‘78



Model Validation – Perfect Storm



Example Results – Winds



Example Results - Hurricane



Exceedance Probability Maps



Depth of Inundation Maps



Example Assessment



7.33 hrs

LOCAL

LOCAL

Example Assessment



10.0 hrs

LOCAL

LOCAL



18-21”

6-9”

Flood Pathways



Flood Pathways



Flood Pathways



Flood Pathways



Local Community Assessment



Time Variable Accretion



Plum Island,

MA

Hein et al., 2012 (Marine Geology)



Summary1. This model approach provides high-

resolution flooding results for projectedclimate change scenarios.

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/Departments/EnvmentalServices/EMSSustainabilityUnit/Sustainability.aspx



2. Peer-reviewed by WHOI, USGS, NOAA,USACE, and USEPA.

3. Includes relevant processes, storm types,and joint probabilities.

4. Provides realistic probability basedresults that can be more effectively usedto assess vulnerabilities and provideplanning prioritization.

5. The model can be used to test various

adaptation and engineering options,connected to ecological, pipedinfrastructure, and economic models.

6. The model is currently being extended tothe entire coastline of Massachusetts,with time varying topography.

NETWORKING BREAK









Implications

Implications for CoastalEcosystems



Pam DiBona

Executive Director

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary

Program (MassBays)





Pam DiBon

Executive Directo

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Multiple mandates… President’s Climate Action Plan

Develop Actionable Climate ScienceA Cli Ch I i h U S



Assess Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. Launch Climate Data Initiative

Third National Climate Assessment U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to “assist the Nation

and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”

National Ocean Policy Priority Objectives Ecosystem-based management

Resiliency and adaptation to climate change and ocean acidification

U.S. EPA Climate Ready Estuaries Program National Estuary Program-focused technical and grant assistance NEP test cases and innovations generate best practices and lessons

learned for others

Many views…





Some measures



Frequency and magnitude

of coastal storm damages M B illi 2014$



$82• 1978-Feb• 1987-Jan

$172• 1991-Aug• 1991-Oct• 1992-Dec

$10• 2001-Mar• 2003-Jan• 2007-Apr

$26• 2010-Dec• 2012-Oct• 2013-Feb• 2013-Mar

?

MassBays, millions, 2014$

Source: MA CZM, based on National Flood Insurance Program Claims, 1978-present

Mean sea surface temperature

1 DEG C per 100 yr1880-2005



T e m p e r

a t u r e a n o m a l y ( D e g .

C )

Shearman and Lentz, 2010

Water temp

Stratification

Primaryproductivity

American lobster, 1968-2014



Source: Northeast Fisheries Service biennial trawling data,http://nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/spatial-analyses/

8

9

Cold-water Species Richness Tren



0

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

Year

Cold Temperates Linear (Cold Temperates)

CT DEEP, Marine Fisheries Division, Spring Indices

Source: LIS Spring Trawl Survey

12

Warm-water Species Richness Tren



0

2

4

6

8

10

1 9 8

4

1 9 8

6

1 9 8

8

1 9 9

0

1 9 9

2

1 9 9

4

1 9 9

6

1 9 9

8

2 0 0

0

2 0 0

2

2 0 0

4

2 0 0

6

2 0 0

8

2 0 1

0

2 0 1

2

Year

Warm Temperates Linear (Warm Temperates)

CT DEEP, Marine Fisheries Division, Fall Indices

Source: LIS Spring Trawl Survey

New Species, 2007-2013

Photo: L. Green

Species Taxonomic Group

Colpomenia peregrina Phaeophyceae (Brown alga)

Pyropia yezoensis Rhodophyta (Red Alga)

H i h i



Photo: I. Bárbara

Photo: A. Gittenbe

Ph

Heterosiphonia

japonica 1Rhodophyta (Red Alga)

Lomentaria orcadensis Rhodophyta (Red Alga)

Lomentaria clavellosa Rhodophyta (Red Alga)

Bugula simplex 2 Bryozoa

Conopeum seurati Bryozoa

Tricellaria inopinata Bryozoa

Clytia linearis 3 Hydroid

Melita palmata 3 Amphipod

Ianiropsis serricaudis4 Isopod

Palaemon elegans European shrimp

Photo: A. Gittenberger

1Result from outside RAS survey2Previously classified as cryptogenic3Establishment unknown4Previously identified to genus level only

Photo: H. Hillewaert

Source: Office of Coastal Zone Management

Current research and assessment



Marsh migration & changes in hydrology

Eelgrass mapping for carbon storage estimates

Persistence of an invasive species

Sea level rise impact on Cape Cod’s aquifer

Coastal acidification



ScopeTransport and erosion of

Great Marsh Hydrogeologic Modeling



Transport and erosion ofsediments, including:

• barrier beach erosion• channel infilling• marsh accretion

Salinity movement, relevant to:• invasive species control• native Plant Restoration

GoalIdentify future sediment andsalinity management options

Baseline eelgrass



g

mapping

Persistence of an invasive specie

Time period Totalcollected

CPUE Ratio femalmale



Spring 2014 1384 0 to 215 2

Summer 2014 4762 34 to 572 3

Fall 2014 1720 15 to 226 1

Spring 2015 127 0 to 57 1

Summer 2015 706 1-128 3.5

Fall 2015 1390 0 to 126 2

Impact of sea level rise

on Cape Cod’s aquifer Goals



Model effects of sea level rise (2’, 4’,

6’) on groundwater (e.g., water table,stream flows, freshwater-saltwaterinterface).

Evaluate impacts on water, wetlands,septic systems/wastewatermanagement, stormwatermanagement, and infrastructure.

Develop and share recommendedadaptation measures.

Coastal acidification monitoring & impassessment



Source: Gledhill et al., 2015



Where next?

Integrated Sentinel Network for Monitoring

Change in Northeastern U.S. Ocean and Coast

Ecosystems (ISMN)



Vision

An adaptive sentinel monitoring and data management program thatinforms researchers, managers and the public about ecosystem status a

vulnerabilities, and supports an integrated, ecosystem-basedmanagement framework for adaptive responses to climate change andrelated ecosystem pressures.

Goal

To improve our ability to detect and understand the causes of long-termchange in the composition, structure, and function of Northeastern U.and Canadian maritime coastal and ocean ecosystems.

NE sentinel monitoring scope

Pelagic: water column



Estuarine/nearshorehead of tide to coastal

ocean

g

10 meters to offshore

Benthic covers ocean

floor from high tideto canyons

Sentinel indicators: consensus definitio

Sentinel



A habitat, (abiotic) condition or process, or a species, population or

community; its change in state or condition indicates some aspect of

ecosystem change (good or bad).

Indicator

A metric that provides information about the direction of change in

the state or condition of a Sentinel.

Final science and implementation pla



Available online: http://www.neracoos.org/sentinelmonitoring



Jan Greenwood

Implications for WastewaterInfrastructure



Jan Greenwood

Vice President

Woodard and Curran





Preparing For Climate Chang

Statewide Cooperation at Rhode Island’sWastewater Treatment Facilities

Jan Greenwood, PE - Woodard & Curran



State of R

Annual Precipitation at Providence, RI



Wastewater Treatment Facility Vulnerability

WWTFs and pump stations

are built in low lying areas

This subjects the infrastructure



This subjects the infrastructure

to coastal and riverine

inundation

Structures, wet wells, open

tanks, equipment, and staff

Overflows discharge intoadjacent surface waters



State of Rhode Island

State of Rhode Island

State of RhState of Rhode

Long Term Planning

RIDEM’s Statewide Approach for Long Term Planning

of Major Modifications to WWTFs

RIDEM formed a collaborative partnership with the



p p

Division of Planning and the RI Bays, Rivers, andWatershed Coordination Team, the CRMC, and local

communities

Developed a project to improve WWTF reliability under

changing climate conditions:

Statewide assessment of 19 wastewater treatmentfacilities and major collection components

Identify vulnerabilities

Identify short-term and long-term adaptive strategies



Five-Step Project Approach

Project Approach

Step 1: Climate change science and potential

for impacts in Rhode Island

Step 2 Preliminar assessment of climate



Step 2: Preliminary assessment of climate

change impacts to RI WWTFs

Step 3: Refined risk assessment of impacts

on wastewater infrastructure

Step 4: Development of recommendations

for adaptive strategies

Step 5: Final project report and outreach materials

Step 1: Climate Change Science & Potential for Impacts in Rho

Warmer “feel like” temperatures

Rising Sea Levels



Enhanced warming of surface ocean

Increased heavy precipitation

Greaterlikelihood of

intense

hurricanes

Sources (clockwise): Bend er et al., 2010; Frumhoff et al. 2007; Pariss et al., 2012, Melillo et al., 2014; EPA, 2014

Step 2: Preliminary Assessment of Climate Change Impacts to Rhod

1. Data Collection From Facility Operators 2. Statewide Modeli

US Army C



Composite storm set

Step 2: Preliminary Assessment

FacilityLocation on

FEMA FIRMValue Hazard History Value

Documented losses and

costs since 2009Value Value

Infrastructu

Inundation

East Providence WWTF Within V Zone 3 More than 3 since 2009 3 Major Repairs 3 0Greater than 50% system cap5-ft scenario

Warren United Water Within V Zone 3 2-3 since 2009 2 None 1 0Greater than 50% system cap5-ft scenario

Cranston WPCF Within A Zone 2 2-3 since 2009 2 Major Repairs 3 0Between 10% and 50% systemunder 5-ft scenario

Quonset Development Corporation Within V Zone 3 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0Greater than 50% system cap5-ft scenario

B i t l WWTF 1 2 3 2009 2 3 0Between10%and50% system



Bristol WWTF Within X Zone 1 2-3 since 2009 2 Major Repairs 3 0Between 10% and 50% systemunder 5-ft scenario

East Greenwich WWTF Within A Zone 2 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0 Greater than 50% system cap5-ft scenario

West Warwick Regional WWTF Within A Zone 2 1 or less since 2009 1 Major Repairs 3 0Greater than 50% system cap5-ft scenario

NBC Bucklin Point WWTF Within X Zone 1 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0Greater than 50% system cap5-ft scenario

NBC Fields Point WWTF Within X Zone 1 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0Greater than 50% system cap

5-ft scenario

Newport WWTF Within X Zone 1 More than 3 since 2009 3 None 1 0Between 10% and 50% system

under 5-ft scenario

Warwick Sewer Authority Within X Zone 1 1 or less since 2009 1 Major Repairs 3 0Between 10% and 50% systemunder 5-ft scenario

Westerly United Water Within X Zone 1 2-3 since 2009 2 Major Repairs 3 0Less than 10% system capacit5-ft scenario

Jamestown Sewer Division Within X Zone 1 2-3 since 2009 2 MiscellaneousExpenses 2 0Less than 10% system capacit5-ft scenario

Narragansett WWTF Within V Zone 3 2-3 since 2009 2 None 1 0Less than 10% system capacit5-ft scenario

South Kingstown Regional WWTF Within X Zone 1 2-3 since 2009 2 None 1 0Between 10% and 50% systemunder 5-ft scenario

Woonsocket WWTF Within X Zone 1 1 or less since 2009 1 Major Repairs 3 0Less than 10% system capacit5-ft scenario

Burrillville WWTF Within A Zone 2 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0Less than 10% system capacit

5-ft scenario

New Shoreham Sewer Division Within X Zone 1 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0Less than 10% system capacit

5-ft scenario

Smithfield Veolia Water Within X Zone 1 1 or less since 2009 1 None 1 0Less than 10% system capacit5-ft scenario


5

Rhode Island WWTF Prioritization



2

1 1

3 3

2

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1

Facility Score Based on Matrix Criteria




Step 3: Refined Risk Assessment

Evaluate risk and

impacts of failure

to facility systems

Pro

DAging

E



Prioritize systems,structures, and

components requiring

adaptive measures

Proc

Headw

Infrastructure

E

O&M Issues

Future

Regulations

Sea Level

Rise

Sea L

Step 4: Recommendations for Adaptive Strategies

Upgrades

Relocation

Protective barriers



Protective barriers

New access routes

Photos: Kennebunk Sewer District Berm,

Warwick Protective Berm & Emergency

Generator (Warren, RI)

Step 5: Outreach



State of Rhode Is

Cooperative Project Execution

State

Agencies Academic



Agencies

Private

Consultants



Shoreline Change Assessment

Shoreline Change Inputs Statewide LiDAR digital elevation mode

Projected sea level change on 25-, 50-,

Historic shoreline data mapped by USG

Rates of erosion/accretion at shore norm



100-yr shoreline change - Narragansett

Shoreline Change Output

GIS files of projected changes in shorelineorientation at various time horizons

Results computed for select coastal

reaches (plant locations)

Coastal Hazard Assessment

Identified WWTF

infrastructure at risk to

inundation by storm surge



and SLR Coastal climate change

impacts to

8 WWTFs

24 Pump stations

Wave Hazard Assessment

Wave Height Analysis for Flood Insurance Studies (WHAFIS)

predictions for total water level at 8 WWTFs (19 transects)



Inland Flood Assessment

Identified base flood elevations (BFEs) for inland waterways a

expanded floodplain boundaries for 2 feet and 3 feet increase

Federal Flood Risk Management Standards (FFRMS)



Identified 6 WWTFs

at risk to inundation

by inland flooding



Conclusions

Conclusions

Expanded statewide coastal hazard

assessment tools available online

Significantly improved accuracy of



statewide inland flooding potential

Statewide collaboration and data

sharing is helping:

RI WWTFs

Communities

Other State Agencies



Thank You!

Panel Discussion

Moderator: Scott Turner, Nitsch Engineering

• Sai Ravela, MIT/WindRiskTech

• Christopher Little, AER



• Roselle Henn, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Kirk Bosma, Woods Hole Group

• Pam DiBona, MassBays

• Jan Greenwood, Woodard and Curran



EBC Climate Change Program Series:

Part One – The Science, Modeling,

and Implications of Climate

Change for Coastal New England



Documents

5-13-16 MASTER Climate Change Series Part 1