City of Olympia's Response to the Challenge of Climate Change

Background Report and Preliminary Recommendations

September 2007

Olympia’s Response to The Challenge of Climate Change

City of Olympia's Response to the Challenge of Climate Change:

A Background Report and Preliminary Recommendations September 2007

Prepared by Public Works Department Water Resources Andy Haub, Planning and Engineering Manager Danielle Harrington, Program Specialist Vince McGowan, Senior Program Specialist Heather Reed, Office Specialist III With assistance from: Lara Whitely-Binder, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group Dorothy Craig, Dorothy P. Craig & Associates For information contact: Andy Haub (360) 753-8475 [email protected]

City of Olympia Public Works Water Resources P.O. Box 1967 Olympia, WA 98507 The City of Olympia is committed to the non-discriminatory treatment of all persons in employment and the delivery of services and resources.

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Part 1. Climate Change 101 – What Every Citizen Needs to Know.............................................................. 3

What is the greenhouse effect? ................................................................................................................... 3 What is causing global warming?............................................................................................................... 4 Where do greenhouse gases come from?.................................................................................................... 7

Emissions in Washington State............................................................................................................... 8 Global Emissions by Region .................................................................................................................. 8

Are greenhouse gas emissions increasing? ................................................................................................. 9 Recent Increases in GHG Emissions ...................................................................................................... 9 Projected Trends in Emissions.............................................................................................................. 10

What will it take to stabilize emissions?................................................................................................... 10 Feedback Loops Can Accelerate Change ............................................................................................. 11 Delayed Effect of Reducing Emissions ................................................................................................ 11 CO2 Concentrations and Global Temperature ...................................................................................... 12 Reduction Needed to Stabilize CO2 Emissions..................................................................................... 13

How dangerous is the situation? ............................................................................................................... 13 Effects of Increasing Global Temperature............................................................................................ 13 Potential for Abrupt Change................................................................................................................. 15

What are the regional impacts of climate change? ................................................................................... 16 Pacific Northwest Region ..................................................................................................................... 17 South Puget Sound................................................................................................................................ 21

Part 2. Response to Climate Change – What We Can Do to Slow Global Warming and Adapt to Change. 26 What should be our overall response to climate change? ......................................................................... 26

Value of Mitigation Strategies.............................................................................................................. 26 Value of Adaptation Strategies ............................................................................................................. 27 Framework for Decision-Making ......................................................................................................... 28

What’s being done? .................................................................................................................................. 29 Research Institutions and Resources..................................................................................................... 29 Mayors for Climate Protection ............................................................................................................. 29 Western Regional Climate Action Initiative......................................................................................... 30 State of Washington.............................................................................................................................. 30

What can city governments do?................................................................................................................ 31 What has Olympia done so far?................................................................................................................ 31

Mitigation Actions................................................................................................................................ 32 Adaptation Actions ............................................................................................................................... 33 Recent Refocusing on Climate Change ................................................................................................ 33

What next steps are recommended for Olympia? ..................................................................................... 34 Mitigation Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 34 Adaptation Strategy .............................................................................................................................. 35

Glossary........................................................................................................................................................ 36 References .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix A. Mapping Sea Level Rise in Olympia: Data sources, Assumptions and Next Steps .............. 42 Appendix B. City of Olympia 2007 Emissions Report................................................................................ 44

City of Olympia’s Response to the Challenge of Climate Change 09/04/07 1

Introduction It’s an inconvenient truth, but climate change is now arguably the most urgent imperative facing humanity, and suddenly it’s in the news. Spurred by recent scientific reports, television, newspapers, magazines and movies are all talking about climate change, the likely impacts, and what we need to do about it.

Over the past year, City staff have been combing through the volumes of available information to learn what climate change will bring and what it means for Olympia. This report presents their initial findings to guide the City’s response to climate change. Part 1, “Climate Change 101,” summarizes “what every citizen should know,” answering some basic questions:

• What is the greenhouse effect? • What is causing global warming? • Where do greenhouse gases come from? • Are greenhouse gas emissions increasing? • What will it take to stabilize emissions? • How dangerous is the situation? • What are the regional impacts of global warming?

Part 2, “Response to Climate Change," summarizes what can be done to slow global warming in the long-term and how we can adapt to change in the short-term. It addresses these basic questions:

• What should be Olympia’s overall response to climate change? • What’s being done? • What can city governments do? • What has the City done so far? • What next steps are recommended for Olympia?

In response to each question there is a short answer for those who are scanning the report, followed by details for readers interested in more depth.

This report is intended as the beginning of a systematic ongoing process of research, planning, action, evaluation and adjusting course as more information becomes available.

To be effective, the City will need to act in partnership with many other organizations and agencies, and with active citizen involvement. Fortunately, many local, regional and international resources are available to assist with this process.


At the end of the report is a glossary of technical terms and references to the sources cited. Scientific terms highlighted in purple are defined in the glossary. Appendices give further detail on sea level rise mapping and tracking of internal City emissions.

Two primary sources for information in this report are the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the multi-disciplinary Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington. CIG researches the impacts of global climate change and natural climate variability on the Pacific Northwest.

A third resource is earlier work from the City of Olympia. Olympia first recognized the need to address climate change in the early 1990s. Two reports, City of Olympia’s Response to the Challenge of Global Climate Change, December 1991, and Preliminary Assessment of Sea Level Rise in Olympia, Washington: Technical and Policy Implications, June 1993, were heavily drawn upon in drafting this report.


Part 1. Climate Change 101 – What Every Citizen Needs to Know Part 1 briefly reviews the basic science about climate change, including the causes of global warming, sources of greenhouse gases, what’s required to stabilize emissions, and local and regional impacts of global warming.

WHAT IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT? The greenhouse effect has a major influence on earth’s climate. Climate is simply a long-term average of the variations in day-to-day weather. It emerges from a complex set of interactions and processes among the atmosphere, oceans, lakes, and rivers, ice and snow, and the land surface.

Human-induced and natural changes play key roles in the complex energy balance that ultimately determines climate.

The earth’s greenhouse effect occurs when greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat in the atmosphere. As illustrated in Figure 1, as solar energy enters the earth’s atmosphere, some is absorbed by the oceans and land surface, and some radiates back out into space. Without the protective layer of these greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – the average global temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit (F) instead of the currently observed globally averaged surface air temperature of around 59 degrees F (Kay, Casala and Snover 2005, p. 1).

Figure 1. The Greenhouse Effect.

Source: WA Department of Ecology (2007), p. 2, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0701023.pdf


An increased concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere leads to an increase in the air temperature at the surface of the earth - a warmer climate. Geological history demonstrates this. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide have fluctuated over the last 700,000 years between 180 and 280 parts per million (ppm). These fluctuations have coincided with seven cycles between glacial and interglacial conditions where global average temperature changed by 9 to 14 degrees F (Snover 2005, p. 12).

The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than the present for an extended time was 125,000 years ago, during the last interglacial (warmer) period (IPCC 2007b, p. 9). During that time, polar regions averaged temperatures 5 to 9 degrees F higher than today and sea level was likely 12 to 18 feet higher than today.

WHAT IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING? IPCC scientists have concluded that it is very likely (greater than a 90 percent chance) that most of the observed increases in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century are due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations (IPCC 2007b, p. 10). Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the dominant GHGs responsible for the current observed warming, with carbon dioxide exerting the most influence.

The greenhouse effect is a natural process that maintains livable average global temperatures. Innumerable natural and anthropogenic (human) influences (called ”radiative forcings”) combine to warm and cool the earth. The problem is that “global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750, the beginning of the industrial revolution, and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.” (IPCC 2007b, p. 2.)

Because these GHGs are long-lived and chemically stable, remaining in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, they have long-term influences on the climate (Solomon 2007, p. 24). The impacts of these changes are potentially catastrophic, especially if humans fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fail to adapt to changes that are now unavoidable.

Several less significant sources of warming are: (Solomon, pp. 28-30).

• Ozone-forming chemicals are short-lived greenhouse gases produced by chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere mainly from nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and formaldehyde.

• Oxidation of methane increases water vapor in the stratosphere. Water vapor holds heat, enhancing the greenhouse effect.

• Black carbon aerosols deposited on snow increase the absorption of heat on earth by reducing the reflectivity of snow (surface albedo).

• Airplane contrails have a small warming effect.


• Natural solar irradiance (the energy output of the sun that fluctuates on an 11-year cycle).

Figure 2 illustrates the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over the past 2,000 years. Note the upward trend beginning with the industrial revolution. Concentrations are in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb), indicating the number of molecules of the greenhouse gas per million or billion air molecules in an atmospheric sample.

Figure 2. Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases over Two Millennia.

Source: Forster, P. V. (2007), p. 135

Table 1 shows current concentrations of greenhouse gases compared with post- industrial trends and the natural range over eons. It also shows the primary human sources of each major greenhouse gas.


Table 1. Relative Levels of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere.

GAS CURRENT LEVEL (2005)

INCREASE FROM PRE-INDUSTRIAL

TIMES TO 2005

NATURAL RANGE

IN THE PAST

MAJOR ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES

CURRENT TRENDS

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

379 ppm (parts per million)

280 to 379 ppm 180 to 300 ppm over 650,000 years

Burning of fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation and effects of land change on plant and soil carbon.

Annual average increase 1.9 ppm/year (1995-2005).

Methane 1,774 ppb (parts per billion)

715-1,774 ppb 320 to 790 ppb over 650,00 years

Fossil fuel production, decay in landfills, digestive processes of farm animals.

Growth rates have declined since the early 1990s.

Halocarbons (CFCs and hydrochloro-fluorocarbons)

Responsible for 12% of the total forcing of long-lived greenhouse gases.

N/A Did not exist before the industrial revolution.

Human made chemicals made for cooling technologies and electric system infrastructure.

Emissions decreasing due to phase out under Montreal Protocol and natural removal processes.

Nitrous Oxide 319 ppb 270-319 ppb Varied less than about 10 ppb for 11,500 years before industrial revolution.

Fossil fuel burning, nitrogen-based fertilizers, emissions from industrial processes.

Growth rate approximately constant since 1980.

Source: IPCC (2007b), pp. 2-4 and Solomon, pp. 24-28

Figure 3 illustrates the relative positive (warming) and negative (cooling) influences described above. The combined warming effects of the anthropogenic influences (shown in red) far outweigh the cooling effects of natural and anthropogenic influences. The graph shows relative influences (radiative forcings) in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). The thin horizontal line refers to the range of uncertainty.


Figure 3. Relative Influences on Climate Change Since 1750 (Radiative Forcing).

Source: Forster, P.V. (2007) p. 136

WHERE DO GREENHOUSE GASES COME FROM? This section describes the sources of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity. It then lists those sources in Washington State and relative contributions by regions of the world.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are stored, released, and exchanged among things as varied as rocks, oceans, plants, animals and the atmosphere. The weathering of rocks releases carbon dioxide while oceans and plants absorb it. Ruminant animals such as cattle release methane, as do landfills. Agricultural practices and fossil fuel burning release nitrous oxide to the atmosphere.

Most significant is the increased release of carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants take in CO2 and store the carbon in their tissue. Fossilized plants (coal, oil, natural gas) have kept this carbon locked up beneath the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. As plants decay and as wood or fossil fuels are burned, CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The rapid release of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the major factor contributing to the overall increase of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere.

The primary sources of CO2 emissions from human activity between 1974 and 2004 are energy supply, transportation (vehicle emissions), industry, land-use change (deforestation), agriculture and buildings (heating and cooling) (IPCC 2007a, p. 3-4).


Emissions in Washington State Washington State emits about 85-90 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually – 0.3 percent of worldwide emissions. This represents an average of about 13.5 tons of CO2 per Washington resident, which is three times more than the average annual emission of four tons per global citizen. It is also 30 percent less than the U.S. average of 20 tons, mainly due to the heavy use of hydroelectricity in Washington (Bauman 2006, pp. 15-16).

Figure 4 illustrates the sources and quantities of each greenhouse gas emitted in Washington State.

Figure 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Washington State – 2004.

Source: Washington Department of Ecology (2007), p. 3

Global Emissions by Region In general, developed countries lead in total CO2 emissions and CO2 emissions per capita, while developing countries lead in the growth rate of CO2 emissions (Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html).

As of 2004, the United States and Canada were responsible for 19.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2007a). The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that average per capita CO2 emission rates for 2004 as:

• 20.18 metric tons – United States

• 15.99 metric tons – North America (including Canada and Mexico)

• 7.96 metric tons – Europe

• 2.69 metric tons – Asia and Oceana

• 2.35 metric tons – Central and South America

• 1.13 metric tons – Africa


In 2005, CO2 emissions of China were still 2 percent below those of the U.S. By 2006, China’s emissions had surpassed those of the U.S. by 8 percent, primarily because of an increase in coal consumption. China now tops the list of CO2 emitting countries for the first time (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 2007).

Figure 5 shows the 2007 distribution of regional per capita GHG emissions for different regions. Percentages indicate a region’s share of global GHG emissions. (As defined in the Kyoto Agreement on limiting GHG emissions, “annex” refers to developed countries and “non-annex” refers to a developing country.)

Figure 5. Relative CO2 Emissions by Region.

Source: IPCC, 2007a, p. 7

ARE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INCREASING? This section summarizes emissions trends worldwide, in the United States and Washington. Generally, emissions are increasing at an accelerating rate with growth in population and development, especially in China, where the number of coal-fired power plants is rapidly increasing.

Recent Increases in GHG Emissions Between 1970 and 2004, global greenhouse emissions increased by 70 percent above the pre-industrial era. Emissions from energy supply and transportation (vehicle) emissions have increased by over 100 percent, industry by 65 percent, land use (deforestation) by 40 percent, and agriculture and buildings by over 20 percent (IPCC 2007a, pp. 3-4.).

Globally, “the amount of CO2 released by burning fossil fuels has increased steadily from negligible levels to more than 27 billion tons per year, or over four tons for each of the 6.4 billion people now living.” (Bauman 2007, p. 15.)


Total GHG emissions in the United States rose 16 percent between 1990 and 2005, with a 1.6 percent since 2000 (EPA 2007). Most emissions were carbon dioxide, primarily from fossil fuel combustion.

In Washington State, carbon dioxide released by vehicles, factories, power plants and airplanes has increased by roughly 75 percent since 1970 and is projected to increase even more as population grows (Bauman 2007, pp. 15-16).

Figure 6 illustrates these trends in the U.S. over the last 15 years.

Figure 6. Emissions Trends in the US, 1990-2005.

Source: From EPA 2007, Fast Facts

Projected Trends in Emissions If fossil fuels continue as a primary source of energy into 2030 and beyond, the IPCC projects a 25 to 90 percent increase in global GHG emissions between 2000-2030 (IPCC 2007a, p. 4). If current emissions policies and development practices continue, global GHG emissions will continue to grow.

Efforts to reduce GHG emissions over the next two to three decades would make a significant difference in future climate change projections. “In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.” (IPCC 2007a, p. 22.)

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO STABILIZE EMISSIONS? The good news is that because most global warming is currently caused by human activity, humans can do something about it – any reduction in emissions will eventually slow warming. The bad news is that the current warming trend will continue for at least 100 years, even with drastic cuts in emissions. Emissions will need to be drastically


reduced for the climate to eventually stabilize at a somewhat higher temperature. If this does not happen, increased warming may reach a tipping point where climate systems spin out of control and human intervention will have little or no impact.

Feedback Loops Can Accelerate Change Human activities have caused a rapid increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is unprecedented in geologic time. Climate arises from a complex set of interactions and processes between the atmosphere, oceans, lakes and rivers, ice and snow, and the land surface.

Positive and negative feedback loops develop among these systems as variables, such as GHG concentrations, change. Positive feedback amplifies a change in equilibrium, such as increasing temperature, while negative feedback reduces the effect. A simple example of positive feedback is melting ice. Ice and snow are white or light in color and reflect some of the sun’s rays (Figure 1). Darker liquid meltwater absorbs more of the sun’s energy, melting the ice and increasing ocean temperature. As more ice melts, a positive feedback loop kicks in. More ice melts, the meltwater warms, oceans warm and expand. As sea levels rise, more water comes in contact with ice, more ice melts and so on in an accelerating process.

This oversimplified example illustrates how a system in balance can turn into a rapidly changing system from a relatively small initial change. Other potential sources of positive feedback identified by the IPCC (2007) are:

• Methane release from melting permafrost peat bogs. • Methane release from hydrates stored in the ocean floor. • Carbon cycle feedback (release of CO2 from soil and forests). • Forest fires.

Global climate models attempt to consider all of the relationships, feedback loops and changing variables of the climate system to determine what inputs it will take to stabilize emissions.

Delayed Effect of Reducing Emissions The primary greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for many years. Even if CO2

emissions peak sometime in the next 100 years and atmospheric concentrations stabilize, surface air temperature will continue to rise slowly for a century or more before reaching equilibrium. Sea level will continue to rise for many centuries before reaching equilibrium because of continued thermal expansion of the ocean and melting of ice sheets.

This scenario is illustrated conceptually in Figure 7. Because it is a generic illustration for stabilization at any level between 450 and 1,000 ppm, there are no units on the response axis. The pattern is similar, but the impacts become progressively larger at


higher concentrations of CO2. The challenge is to reduce and eventually stabilize emissions at a sustainable level that allows ecosystems and civilizations to continue functioning.

Figure 7. CO2 Concentration, Temperature and Sea Level Continue to Rise Long after Emissions are Reduced.

Source: IPCC, 2001, p. 17

CO2 Concentrations and Global Temperature CO2 concentrations are directly correlated with global temperature: the higher the CO2 concentrations, the higher the temperature. Global CO2 levels are currently at around 380 ppm, compared with pre-industrial levels ranging from 180 to 280 ppm. Global temperature is now estimated to be 0.76 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Significant progress has been made in modeling how sensitive the climate system is to different natural and human radiative forcings. For example, scientists have modeled how temperature responds to forcing caused by CO2 emissions. For a given peak atmospheric concentration of CO2, Table 2 shows what the temperature would eventually be when it reaches equilibrium. Temperature is shown as the increase above pre-industrial levels. Temperatures are shown in Celsius (C); a change of one degree Celsius equals a change of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.


Table 2. Temperature Range Resulting from Different Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations.

CO2 EQUIVALENT MOST LIKELY VERY LIKELY ABOVE LIKELY IN THE RANGE

350 1.0 0.5 0.6-1.4

450 2.1 1.0 1.4-3.1

550 2.9 1.5 1.9-4.4

650 3.6 1.8 2.4-5.5

750 4.3 2.1 2.8-6.4

1,000 5.5 2.8 3.7-8.3

1,200 6.3 3.1 4.2-9.4 Source: Solomon, 2007, p. 66

Reduction Needed to Stabilize CO2 Emissions Given the current trend of increasing emissions, drastic reductions will be needed to stabilize atmospheric levels of CO2. Table 3 shows how much reduction will be needed to stabilize CO2 levels at different levels. CO2 equivalent concentration is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their potential to warm the earth.

Table 3. Emissions Reductions Required to Stabilize CO2 Concentrations.

CO2 EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION (PPM)

YEAR OF PEAK CO2 EMISSIONS

CHANGE IN CO2 EMISSIONS BY 2050 (COMPARED TO 2000 EMISSIONS)

445-490 2000-2015 - 50-85%

490-535 2000-2021 - 30-60%

535-590 2000-2030 - 30% to + 5%

Source: IPCC, 2007a, p. 23

HOW DANGEROUS IS THE SITUATION? Given the relationship between increasing GHG concentrations and global temperature, this section describes some of the impacts of reaching a “tipping point” beyond which change is irreversible and the further risk, based on geologic evidence, that catastrophic change may occur abruptly.

Effects of Increasing Global Temperature While scientists remain uncertain when temperatures might reach a “tipping point,” many say global carbon dioxide emissions must be cut in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible. Such possible triggering events include:


• Widespread coral bleaching that would damage the world's fisheries. • Melting of the permafrost, releasing large quantities of methane. • Release of the huge carbon stores in forests and soils. • Melting of sea and land ice resulting in dramatic sea level rise. • A shutdown of the major ocean currents that moderates temperatures in

northern Europe.

In 2005, using the most recent information at the time from IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), scientists at an international symposium in the United Kingdom determined that risks of increased temperatures were more serious than previously thought (International Scientific Steering Committee, 2005).

The total increase of global surface temperature (average near-surface air temperature over the land and the sea surface temperature) from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76 degrees C with the linear warming trend being about 0.13 degrees C per decade over the last 50 years (IPCCb, 2007, p.5). At present rates of emissions, the increase may reach 1 degree C by 2040. Although a 1 degree C temperature increase may be beneficial for some regions and high latitude areas, temperature increases are widely harmful, especially at higher increases. Table 4 highlights possible impacts for progressive increases in temperature.

Table 4. Predicted Effects of Increasing Global Temperature from 2004.

INCREASE ABOVE CURRENT TEMPERATURE LEVELS (CELSIUS)

ECOSYSTEM EFFECT IMPACT

1.5 degrees (2.7 F) May trigger melting of Greenland ice cap.

Potentially devastating sea level rise.

1-3 degrees (1.8-5.4 F) Serious risk of large-scale, irreversible disruption, including reversal of the land carbon sink (release of carbon stored in forests and soil).

Increasing drought in some areas and rainfall in others. Up to 30% of species at risk of extinction. Most corals bleached.

Above 3 degrees (5.5F) Disruption of Antarctic ice sheets becomes more likely. Weakening of thermohaline circulation of the oceans (“conveyor belt” of currents around the world, driven by cooling, warming and mixing of water).

Potentially devastating sea level rise. Significant species extinctions. Widespread coral mortality.

Further increases Shutdown of thermohaline circulation of the oceans.

Could trigger localized cooling in the North Atlantic, and cooling or lesser warming, in Europe. Could trigger abrupt climate shifts.

Source: International Scientific Steering Committee, 2005


Figure 8 illustrates the range of potential impacts to water, ecosystems and food across a range of temperature increases. Impacts vary by the rate of temperature change, the adaptability of ecosystems and people, and socio-economic relationships.

Figure 8. Key Impacts Resulting from Increasing Global Average Temperature Change Relative to 1980-1999.

Source: Adger, N., 2007

Potential for Abrupt Change Temperature change and resulting impacts may not occur gradually. The Earth’s climate is always changing, though not always at the same rate. Change is more rapid during transitional times, such as during interglacial periods and at the beginning or end of an ice age. The current Holocene epoch is an interglacial (warming) period that began about 11,500 years ago, so human-induced influences are exacerbating a natural trend.

Paleoclimate evidence from ice cores, tree rings and other natural records reveals that large changes can occur very quickly, in a matter of seasons and years rather than centuries or millennia as was previously thought. One example of abrupt climate change occurred at the end of the last Ice Age. Ice core records from Greenland show in


less than a decade there was a sudden warming of around 15 degrees Celsius (27°F) of the annual mean temperature. Such abrupt events can be found in paleolithic records from many parts of the world, although not necessarily to such an extreme degree. While the exact causes of abrupt climate changes have yet to be clearly established, one area of research that is receiving a great deal of attention is the thermohaline circulation system of the oceans and what role it may play in abrupt climate shifts (NOAA, 2007).

Scientists have limited understanding of what mechanisms drive the variability in the abruptness of climate change. What is known is that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere greatly impact climate, and that they are currently far higher than at any time measured in the past 700,000 years. Human-induced climate change will most likely increase the probability of catastrophic events like drought, large floods and storms, as well as making “abrupt changes in ocean circulation and sea level more likely”. (Overpeck & Cole, 2006, p. 1.)

WHAT ARE THE REGIONAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE? This section summarizes what is known about observed and predicted impacts globally, in the Pacific Northwest and here in the South Puget Sound. Climate change will have extensive impacts on all the natural systems that human societies depend on for survival. These include direct effects such as temperature increases, altered precipitation, snow levels and peak runoff timing and sea level rise. These changes will impact marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, which in turn will impact agriculture, forestry, fisheries, hydropower, water supplies, flood and stormwater management, and human health.

Figure 9 illustrates some of the general cause and effect relationships. For example, human activities cause a change in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, which leads to rising global temperatures. Warming causes the ocean to expand and glaciers to melt, which causes sea level rise, with impacts such as coastal flooding and saltwater intrusion. Global warming also causes local climate changes such as seasonal temperature changes and increased drought, which in turn impacts water supply, agriculture and forestry.


Figure 9. Causes and Effects of Global Warming.

Source: James G. Titus, City of Olympia, 1990, cited in Clouds of Change, City of Vancouver, BC

Pacific Northwest Region Just as global climate modeling is becoming more sophisticated and accurate, more and more information is becoming available about specific regional effects. This section summarizes observed and projected climate effects in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), including temperature, precipitation, snow levels, peak runoff and sea level rise. It then describes qualitative impacts on marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems and the resulting impacts on agriculture, stormwater management, agriculture, hydropower and water supplies.


Observed Effects As of July 2007, the following climate effects have been observed in the PNW region during the 20th century, used with permission of the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group (CIG) 2007:

• Temperature has risen. Average annual temperature increased 0.7 – 0.9°C (1.5°F) in the Pacific Northwest (or PNW, defined as WA, OR, ID, and western MT) between 1920 and 2000 (after Mote 2003).

• Trends in winter season and daily minimum temperatures have been largest. Temperature trends from 1916-2003 are largest from January-March, and trends in minimum daily temperatures have been larger than trends in maximum daily temperatures (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007).

• Decadal variability has dominated annual precipitation trends. Annual precipitation increased 14 percent for the period 1930-1995 for the PNW region. Sub-regional trends ranged from 13-38 percent (Mote 2003). However, these trends are not significant, and the trends depend on the time frame analyzed. Decadal variability is therefore the most important feature of precipitation during the 20th century.

• Cool season precipitation variability has increased. Cool season precipitation in the PNW is more variable from year to year, displays greater persistence, and is more strongly correlated with other regions in the West since about 1973 (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 2007).

• April 1 snow water equivalent (SWE) declined at nearly all sites in the PNW between 1950 and 2000. The declines are strongest at low and middle elevations (Mote et al. 2003), and can be explained by observed increases in temperature (Mote 2006; Hamlet et al. 2005) and declines in precipitation over the same period of record (Hamlet et al. 2005). Low elevation declines in the Cascades are frequently 40 percent or more (average across all elevations is about 29 percent) (Mote et al. 2003, Mote et al. 2005).

• Timing of peak run-off has shifted. Timing of the center of mass in annual river runoff in snowmelt basins shifted 0-20 days earlier in much of the PNW between 1948 and 2002 (Stewart et al. 2005). These findings are corroborated by modeling studies that show similar changes in runoff timing (Hamlet et al. 2007).

Sea level rise has been variable. While overall global sea level has been rising since the last ice age, the amount of rise relative to land is variable throughout the PNW because some land areas are rising and others are subsiding due to plate tectonics.

Projected Effects Scientists from both the IPCC and the CIG project several dramatic changes in the PNW during the 21st century. The following summary is used with permission of the CIG.


• PNW average annual temperatures will increase. Average annual temperature in the PNW will likely increase: • 0.4 to 1.8°C (0.7 and 3.2°F) by the 2020s • 0.8 to 2.6°C (1.4 and 4.6°F) by the 2040s • 1.6 to 4.9°C (2.9 and 8.8°F) by the 2080s relative to average annual temperature for the period 1970-1999 (Mote, Salathe, and Peacock 2005; Salathe et al. 2007, in press).

• The rate of warming will be faster. The rate of warming in the PNW during the 21st century is expected to be between 0.1 and 0.6°C (0.2 and 1.0°F) per decade, with a best estimate of 0.3°C (0.5°F) per decade. The “best estimate” rate is more than three times the rate of change per decade observed in the PNW during the 20th century (0.8°C [0.15°F] per decade) (Mote, Salathe Peacock, 2005; Mote et al. in review).

• Precipitation changes are projected to be small. Precipitation changes are projected to be small compared to the interannual and decadal variability observed during the 20th century (Mote et al. 2005). Average annual precipitation is expected to increase -4 to 7 percent (mean +2 percent) by the decade of the 2020s, -4 to 9 percent (mean +2 percent) by the decade of the 2040s, and -2 to +1 percent (mean +6 percent) by the end of the century (2070-2100) (Mote, Salathe, and Peacock 2005 Mote et al. in review). Most of the increase in precipitation is expected in the winter months. Analysis of future storm tracks indicates a basis for more confidence in wet season increases (Salathe et al. 2007, in press).

In addition, the rate and relative amount of sea level rise will vary geographically based on variability in land subsidence and uplift rates and other factors. For South Puget Sound, the mid-level projected rise is 1.2 feet by 2050 and 2.9 feet by 2100.

Qualitative Impacts Below are some of the major impacts to socioeconomic systems and the ecosystems on which they depend. This summary is provided by the CIG.

• Marine ecosystems. Increases in sea level, water temperature and pH (acidity), combined with changes in salinity, water column stratification, dissolved oxygen and other physical and chemical characteristics of marine waters, would impact the marine food web from the bottom up (e.g., phytoplankton) and top down (e.g., marine mammals) and further impair water quality. Warmer ocean temperatures associated with 20th century climate variability, for example, are known to cause important shifts in the types of zooplankton that form the base of the food chain in coastal marine ecosystems. Warmer water temperatures will stress species unable to seek cooler temperatures and will also bring more warm water predators to


coastal PNW marine ecosystems, impacting salmon and other coastal species. Loss of near shore and salt marsh habitat as well as landslides due to increased erosion also stand to impact the Pacific Northwest (Snover, A.K. 2005, pp.26-30 and Whitely Binder, 2007c).

• Freshwater ecosystems. Increasing stream and lake temperatures, along with changes in the volume and timing of stream flow, could increase the vulnerability of cold water fish populations. Species that experience multiple stresses, such as salmon, are especially at risk. Low summer stream flows and high stream temperatures can hinder juvenile salmon rearing in streams and upstream migration by adult salmon to their spawning areas, preventing successful reproduction. Increased winter stream flow increases the risk of riverbed “scouring”, potentially damaging salmon eggs laid in stream gravel. A shift in the timing of peak snowmelt runoff earlier into the spring would rob spring-migrating juvenile salmon of their transportation to salt water. The effects of human-induced global warming on ocean habitat are not known at this time, although higher temperatures and altered ocean currents are known to affect food availability for salmon and the types of predators that feed on salmon (Whitely-Binder, 2007c).

• Agriculture. Increasing temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations could increase crop yields in places where sufficient water is available. However, in areas where soil moisture or the availability of irrigated water decreases, crops could suffer more days of moisture stress. Increasing temperatures may also increase threats posed by crop pests and pathogens (Whitely-Binder, 2007c).

• Forestry. In response to increasing temperatures, some tree species will shift their geographic range, migrating to higher elevations and latitudes. Other species may be unable to adapt and their numbers will decline. Increasing temperatures will likely create favorable conditions for fire and pest outbreaks, which could become more frequent and severe. (Casola, 2005, pp. 5-6.)

• Fisheries. Increasing stream and lake temperatures along with changes in the volume and timing of streamflow could create environmental conditions that are inhospitable to many Pacific Northwest cold water fish populations. Salmon, which represent some of the region’s most important fish species, are at particular risk. (Casola, 2005, pp. 5-6.)

• Hydroelectric power production. Increasing temperatures, decreases in snowpack, and shifts in the amount and timing of streamflow will likely reduce winter electricity demands and increase winter electricity generation. Conversely, summer demands are likely to increase overall while summer generation is likely to decrease. Any changes in annual hydropower generation are highly dependent on future changes in winter precipitation, and will probably be determined by the characteristics of future wet or dry


cycles, the timing and intensity of which remain uncertain. (Casola, 2005, pp. 5-6.)

• Municipal and industrial water supplies. Increasing temperatures and decreased summer flows could make it more difficult for water suppliers to meet the needs of consumers and in-stream flow requirements, especially in snowmelt-fed watersheds. (Casola, 2005, pp. 5-6.)

• Flood and stormwater management. Increasing temperatures and small increases in winter precipitation could lead to increases in the frequency of flooding in some river basins. It is unclear how urban stormwater flooding may change in the future, as modeling the behavior of individual storms, and their potential response to global warming, is currently beyond the capabilities of global climate models. (Casola, 2005, pp. 5-6.)

South Puget Sound All of the projected effects described above for the Pacific Northwest apply to Olympia and South Puget Sound. Impacts from increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and sea level rise are far reaching. Olympia’s natural and built environments will be significantly impacted by climate change during the 21st century.

In Olympia, potential impacts include: inundation and impairment of stormwater, wastewater and other downtown infrastructure, potential reductions in drinking water reserves, the risk of saltwater intrusion into drinking water aquifers, increased human health and food supply risks, energy supply risks associated with hydroelectricity production under changing stream flow patterns, and increased stress on natural habitats and wildlife. Habitat impacts may include more pressure on salmon, algal blooms, lower dissolved oxygen levels, and loss of shoreline and marshes. Increased risk of forest fire and pest outbreaks can also alter local ecosystems (Snover 2005).

One of the most daunting risks to downtown Olympia is sea level rise. The following section details specific impacts associated with projected sea level rise in Olympia.

Sea Level Rise In 1993, the City of Olympia published its Preliminary Assessment of Sea Level Rise in Olympia, Washington. This report, one of the first of its kind, identified sea level rise as a primary issue for Olympia. According to the report, sea level is already rising in Olympia by about one foot per century due to post-ice age warming of the oceans and subsidence of the land. This rate is expected to increase with rising global temperatures.

While most research has focused on downtown impacts, the City’s major drinking water supply source at McAllister Springs is subject to saltwater intrusion with rising sea levels. The City is planning a new wellfield upgradient from the springs, which will help mitigate the risk.


Potential Impacts on Downtown Olympia

Much of Olympia’s downtown is at risk from sea level rise, lying only one to three feet above the current highest high tides. If no protective measures are taken, the following impacts can be expected with different levels of rise:

• The one foot of sea level rise predicted by 2050 would result in ponding on some streets and flooding of low-lying structures during the extreme high tides that occur once or twice a year.

• A two-foot rise would impact an even greater area. Pipes designed to convey stormwater away from downtown would be unable to discharge fast enough to prevent flooding during storms. At higher levels, flows would reverse and the sea would flow out of street drains and into the streets.

• A three-foot sea level rise, offered as a mid-range prediction by 2100, would overtop many places along the shoreline and flood most of downtown Olympia during extreme high tides. The wastewater and stormwater systems are combined in much of the downtown. Higher sea levels would flow into the wastewater pipes through combined drains and infiltrate through pipe joints, challenging capacity at the LOTT Alliance regional wastewater treatment plant.

The projections of one foot by 2050 and three feet by 2100 are from a 2001 report that added local factors like land subsidence to IPCC projections for global average sea level rise available at the time (Canning 2001).

The IPCC updated its projections slightly in 2007; however, even these most recent projections may need to be adjusted. “The latest literature indicates that the global rise in sea levels is progressing more rapidly than was previously assumed, perhaps due to the dynamic changes in ice flow ignored in the latest IPCC report’s calculations.” (NWF 2007.) In short, sea levels will continue to rise but much uncertainty still exists as to the rate and ultimate level of rise.

In Figure 10, shading shows the area of downtown Olympia at risk from a projected sea level rise of three feet. Risk arises from the combined effects of global sea level rise, subsidence, storm surges and other events associated with climate change. This is three feet or less above the current FEMA 100-year flood elevation for downtown Olympia. See Appendix A for data sources and assumptions used in preparing this map. ‘


Figure 10. Downtown Olympia Area at Risk from Sea Level Rise.

Source: City of Olympia, Water Resources, 2007

Tidal Influences and Land/Sea Elevations

Another factor affecting sea level rise in Olympia is the daily tidal range, one of the largest in Puget Sound due to its location at the southern end. Tides flow in and out twice daily in Olympia through a mean range of about 14 feet. Olympia also has “extreme” tides several times a year that expand this range to 18 feet or more.

It is also important to understand how elevations on land are related to sea level. In Olympia, a zero elevation on land is equal to an 8-foot tidal or sea elevation. This is because the vertical datum or elevation scale used to map Olympia’s land starts at mean sea level, the average level among all the high and low tides in Olympia. Figure 11 illustrates both the tidal range and the relationship between land and sea elevations.


Figure 11. Tidal Range and Relationship of Land and Sea Elevations.

Source: City of Olympia, Water Resources, 2007

Habitat Impacts

Natural systems at risk don’t have the option of moving to accommodate rising sea levels. A recent report for the National Wildlife Federation highlighted sea level rise and coastal habitat impacts for Olympia, Budd Inlet and the Nisqually Delta (NWF 2007). The study looked at IPCC sea level rise scenarios ranging from a 3-inch rise in global average sea level by 2025 to a 27.3-inch rise by 2100. The largest predicted changes are the loss of estuarine beach and the inundation of some dry lands. Estuarine beach, in particular, would decline by 80 percent. The report assumes that all developed lands (including Olympia) will be protected against sea level rise.

Impacts to Natural and Built Environment Climate change and sea level rise will have a wide range of impacts, as described above for the Pacific Northwest. Table 5 summarizes potential impacts to natural systems and human infrastructure that are especially relevant to South Puget Sound.


Table 5. Key Climate Change Impacts in South Puget Sound.

System Impact

Increased coastal erosion.

Inundation of low-lying areas.

Loss of coastal wetlands and shoreline habitats.

NATURAL SYSTEMS: Shoreline

Increased risk of contamination from coastal hazardous waste sites.

Increased stream and river flooding.

Changing surface water quality.

Increased drought, lower groundwater levels, and reduced summer stream flows.

Reduced soil moisture in summer and fall.

Saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers due to sea level rise.

Hydrology

Warmer surface water temperatures.

Increased risk of forest fires.

Increased risk of insect outbreaks.

Forests

Shift in the distribution and range of species. Increased competition from invasive species.

Loss of near-shore habitat and coastal wetlands to sea level rise where sufficient space for habitat migration is not available.

Shifts in species range and distribution. Loss of species unable to adapt. Increased competition from invasive species.

Aquatic Habitat

Potential impacts or benefits to marine food webs from wind-driven changes in coastal and offshore ocean conditions.

Reduced heating demand during winter months and increased cooling demand during the summer.

BUILT SYSTEMS: Energy

Increased/decreased hydroelectric generating capacity due to potential for higher/lower stream flows.

Need for upgraded and new flood control and erosion control structures.

More frequent landslides, road washouts, and embankment erosion.

Potential saltwater contamination of public and private water supplies.

Increased road surface damage from higher temperatures.

Increased maintenance requirements for roadside vegetation.

Infrastructure

Increased competition for water.

Changes in crop yields with potential for pest outbreaks and invasive species. Food Supplies

Increased demands for irrigation water.

Heat-related stress particularly among the elderly, the poor, or other vulnerable populations.

Increase in vector-born illnesses.

Public Health

Reduced summer air quality in urban areas due to increased production of ground level ozone.

Source: Adapted from Snover, A.K., 2005, and Climate Impacts Group, 2007


Part 2. Response to Climate Change – What We Can Do to Slow Global Warming and Adapt to Change Part 2 considers how the City of Olympia can respond, given the reality of changing climate and likely impacts described in Part 1. It presents an overall strategy of mitigation and adaptation, describes what is being done globally and regionally and what Olympia has done so far, and recommends preliminary actions the City can take to lead the community in a long-term strategic response.

WHAT SHOULD BE OUR OVERALL RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE? There is no doubt that communities on all scales, from cities like Olympia to the global community, need to respond to climate change and the quicker the response, the better. To reduce risk of climate change impacts, a two-pronged approach of both mitigation and adaptation strategies is imperative (Adger 2007, p. 19).

• Mitigation strategies to drastically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Mitigation strategies focus on reducing GHG emissions. They can be long-term, with the goal of stabilizing the GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, or short-term with the intent of achieving specific interim targets. Mitigation strategies can involve changes in lifestyle and behavior changes, management practices, policy and regulations and incentives (IPCC 2007a).

• Adaptation strategies to reduce the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of climate change. Adaptation strategies offer approaches to reduce vulnerability and enhance resiliency to climate change impacts. By thinking and planning ahead, communities like Olympia can increase the resiliencies of natural ecosystems and the human community/infrastructure to the impacts described in Part 1 (summarized in Table 5).

Value of Mitigation Strategies Typical mitigation strategies include reducing vehicle emissions (driving less, using fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels), increasing energy and water conservation and efficiencies, and using renewable fuels such as solar and wind power.

Mitigation strategies are intended to reduce long-term vulnerability to climate change. As described in Part 1, the sooner GHG levels in the atmosphere can be stabilized, the


more likelihood that the most catastrophic impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed (Adger 2007).

Studies assessed by IPCC indicate with high confidence that there is “significant economic potential for the mitigation of global emissions over the coming decades that could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels.” (IPCC, 2007a, p. 11.)

Value of Adaptation Strategies Given the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere already, reducing emissions won’t stop the impacts of climate change over the next several decades, so adaptation will be necessary. Typical adaptation strategies include building sea walls, upgrading infrastructure to handle higher flows, developing multiple water supply sources, expanding local agriculture, and improving emergency preparedness.

As described in a CIG presentation (Whitely-Binder, 2007a), adapting to climate change means:

• Taking a proactive approach to reducing risks from anticipated impacts.

• Increasing adaptive capacity – the ability to recover and adapt to impacts that cannot be anticipated or avoided.

Good adaptation strategies also consider non-climate stresses like water pollution, population growth, conflict and disease. These stresses can further increase vulnerability to climate change. Implementing various sustainable development practices can also serve to reduce vulnerability and enhance resiliency (Agner, 2007 p. 18).

To reduce vulnerability to climate change, “more extensive adaptation than is currently occurring is required”, according to the most recent Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report from the IPCC (Agner, p. 17). The rationale for adaptation planning is based on the following assumptions:

1. Future impacts are inevitable. As described in Part 1, greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere will remain for several decades. Oceans will continue expanding in response to current atmospheric warming for centuries. Consequently, halting CO2 emissions today will not prevent warming and sea level rise for years to come. If the global community fails to stabilize and sufficiently reduce GHG emissions, impacts will worsen. Adaptation is therefore essential to Olympia’s climate change response.

2. Planned adaptation is cost-effective. Societies tend to respond to environmental impacts autonomously and incrementally, and this type of response tends to be more costly in the long-term. Preparing in advance is less expensive than rebuilding or adjusting in response to an impact. Responding sooner rather than later will allow the City time to reframe and generate plans and policies,


implement changes and programs, and forge partnerships. For example, a study of three adaptive responses to coastal sea-level rise identified that adapting in advance to protect shorelines is the preferred cost benefit procedure (Yohe, 1997, p. 268).

3. Choices need to be based on potential future conditions, not the past. “The viability of many PNW sectors has come to rely on the expectation that historical climate conditions will continue ‘as is’.” Adaptive planning is not based on historical climate; rather it folds projections of future climate effects like sea level rise and temperature increases into management decisions and long-term planning for sectors that are potentially vulnerable to climate impacts (Whitely-Binder 2007b).

4. Natural resources systems will change. “The PNW is known for its abundantly rich and diverse natural systems. Many of these systems, however, are sensitive to climate. Global warming will likely intensify existing conflicts over scarce natural resources in the PNW, forcing resource managers and planners to deal with increasingly complex tradeoffs between different management objectives.” (Whitely-Binder 2007b.)

Framework for Decision-Making In conceiving a framework for decision-making about such all-encompassing issues as climate change, perhaps the most important element is a long-term perspective. Like most people, political and business decision makers tend to respond to immediate needs with short-term solutions. In today’s world, where it is necessary to respond to barely perceptible changes in the environment in order to avoid future disastrous consequences, a different perspective is needed.

The 1991 Olympia report cited a framework proposed by James G. Titus that decision makers can use to assess potential actions with a long-term perspective. He concludes that “for most problems one can envision a number of easy solutions that would at least begin to address the problem without arousing a constituency in opposition or subsequently appearing to be ill advised. In many cases, the more costly options necessary to solve the whole problem would prove to be good investments even if the climate does not change as expected.” (Olympia 1991.)

Titus describes four categories of responses to global climate change: • Deferred action. Identify situations now where least-cost actions can be done

when and if the problem emerges. (For example, sea level rise could eventually require levees to protect downtown Olympia, but construction can be deferred.)

• Anticipatory action. Take immediate action that has short-term benefits whether or not impacts occur as expected. (For example, stormwater and wastewater pipes can be constructed in anticipation of larger flows.)


• Planning. Plan ahead, changing the rules of the game so people can act rightly now and avoid major cost in the future. (For example, land use and transportation plans that encourage or require denser urban development.)

• Education and research. Educate people to make needed lifestyle changes, and research new solutions as problems become clearer. (For example, providing ongoing information to citizens about individual and collective actions that are needed, and undertaking vulnerability assessments.)

WHAT’S BEING DONE? Momentum is rapidly building to both reduce GHG emissions and adapt to inevitable climate change impacts. On nearly all scales of society from international to the most local, governments, businesses, civic organizations and individual citizens are taking action to deal with the pressing issue of climate change. They are researching, making policy, partnering together and devising strategies. Olympia is very much a part of this dynamic process. Some of the key efforts are highlighted below. For a more complete list, see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/washington.htm.

Research Institutions and Resources Starting in 1988, the World Meterological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme recognized the problem of potential climate change and formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The role of the IPCC is “to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”. It is currently finalizing its Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007. The reports by the IPCC provide a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change and are the foundation for this City of Olympia report. The documents can be downloaded from http://www.ipcc.ch/.

The University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group (CIG) is an interdisciplinary research group studying the impacts of natural climate variability and global climate change on the Pacific Northwest. The CIG serves as a scientific resource, providing reliable data, and also assisting local governments in making new policies and developing strategies to adapt to future impacts. CIG staff have been invaluable resources in preparing this report. CIG research and publications are available at http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/.

Mayors for Climate Protection Globally, 175 nations have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gases to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. Though not


ratified by the United States government, mayors from across the country, including Olympia’s Mayor Mark Foutch, have formed the Mayors for Climate Protection.

Mayors for Climate Protection urges cities to encourage the federal and state governments to meet or exceed Kyoto goals by creating new policies and programs, and to take local responsibility by inventorying emissions and establishing reduction targets. More information is online at http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm.

Western Regional Climate Action Initiative Governors across the United States are also teaming together to develop resources to manage and deal with climate change. The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative is a collaboration of five western state governors, including Governor Gregoire, who are working together to identify, evaluate and implement ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. More information is available online at http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/2007-02-26_WesternClimateAgreementFinal.pdf.

State of Washington Governor Gregoire’s Executive Order 07-02, Facing the Challenge, is a statewide call to “address climate change, grow the clean energy economy and move Washington toward energy independence.” (Ecology, 2007.) The Governor’s key long-term goals for reducing emissions in Washington are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Washington State Emissions Reduction Goals.

ACHIEVE BY REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS REDUCTION FROM 2004 EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS)

2020 1990 levels 10 million

2035 25% below 1990 30 million

2050 50% below 1990 Nearly 50 million

The Executive Order also directs the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to lead the Washington Climate Challenge, a process that will engage business, community and environmental leaders over the next year.

Preparation/Adaptation Working Groups (PAWGs) are helping Ecology and CTED develop recommendations (Ecology 2007). Olympia is represented on the Coastal Infrastructure Working Group by Water Resources staff.

For additional information about efforts throughout the state, including the complete Executive Order, visit the Ecology website, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/.


WHAT CAN CITY GOVERNMENTS DO? Olympia’s 1991 report on climate change described how city governments can act to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and adapt to the impacts of climate change (Olympia 1991, p. 34). Generally, cities can act in three ways:

• Improve municipal operations. Many activities within the government’s direct control are similar to any other large employer, service provider or landowner. In addition to the positive impacts of its own actions, cities can serve as a model for other local governments as well as private organizations. Examples include operation of city-owned vehicles; construction of buildings, streets, utilities, and parks; employee education and incentive programs; policies and practices on purchasing, investment, resource consumption, recycling and disposal.

• Regulate private activity. Cities have broad regulatory authority, often within the framework of state and federal regulations. Examples include land use and transportation planning; shoreline management; zoning, building and subdivision codes; protecting water supply sources; and, solid waste management.

• Educate residents. Cities can influence others through such activities as education on waste reduction and recycling; water and energy conservation; environmental protection and tax and utility rate incentives.

• Partner with neighboring jurisdictions and other resource agencies. Cities can make formal or informal agreements with other entities to take collective action on important issues

Numerous cities nationwide are taking steps to understand climate change, plan for the future and modify local decisions to better influence and prepare for the future. These efforts include increased use of alternative technologies, GHG emission tracking, and assessing the potential vulnerability of key city responsibilities.

WHAT HAS OLYMPIA DONE SO FAR? For over 17 years, the City has been concerned about and engaged in efforts to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for change. This process began in 1990, when a representative of the local citizen Greenhouse Action Group asked the Olympia City Council what the City was doing to address global warming. In response, the City Council decided to make global warming one of its target issues for the next year.

An interdepartmental Global Warming Task Force was launched and prepared a background report on the implications of climate change for Olympia, relying on a major report by Vancouver, BC and technical guidance from Washington Department of Ecology. The report also identified areas where the City had authority to act, steps the City had already taken, and possible future actions. Following publication of this background report, Council passed a resolution committing the City to a long-term strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase tree cover and prepare for climate change.


The City’s climate change initiative soon broadened into a commitment to sustainability. Since the early 1990s, the City has focused on sustainability efforts, including climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.

Mitigation Actions Internally, the City has reduced municipal vehicle and facility emissions, increased urban forest management, and moved towards utilizing 100 percent green power for all utility electricity needs. Since 2000, the City has used a variety of emission reduction techniques (see Appendix B for activities and accomplishments to date). Quantifiable results include:

• Lowering vehicle emissions by about 1,950 tons of CO2, 15 percent above the 1990 levels. With continued efforts, City staff are confident in meeting the goal of returning to 1990 emission levels. Fleet emissions account for approximately 40 percent of the City’s overall emissions.

• Keeping emissions from City facilities at slightly over 1,200 tons of CO2. The goal is the 1990 level of 1,000 tons. Continued work will track energy consumption, heighten employee awareness and implement facility retrofits.

• Continuing to reduce emissions from City utilities from a high in 2002 to roughly 2.5 percent above 1990 levels. The purchase of 100 percent green power should allow utilities to approach the 1990 level in 2007.

• Stabilized CO2 emissions from traffic signals and streetlights at about 625 tons through the use of new, more efficient technologies. The goal is to reach the 1990s levels of roughly 450 tons. Retrofits will continue.

• Continued internal Transportation Demand Management (TDM), which help reduce emissions by reducing employee trips in single-occupancy vehicles and increasing commutes by walking, biking and ridesharing.

The City Council has passed a number of ordinances and resolutions related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

• Ordinance 5141 (November 1990) instructed the City Manager to implement programs to maximize the reduction and recycling of City-generated waste and to procure and promote the use of recycled and recyclable products.

• Resolution M-1306 (February 1991) committing the City to a strategy of responding to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing tree cover and preparing for change, and identifying specific actions for 1991

• Resolution M-1550 (March 2004) adopted a strategy to manage and reduce City government energy and fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

• Resolution M-1586 (February 2005) supported Clean Car (low emission) standards for Washington State.

• Resolution M-1641 (June 2006) directed the City to focus planning efforts on strategies towards achieving Zero Waste.


Other efforts, such as the City’s draft Waste ReSources plan, being released for public review in September 2007, aims to reduce overall waste and increase recycling in Olympia. If successfully implemented, greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by nearly 30,000 tons over a six-year period.

Adaptation Actions In 1993, the City’s Global Warming Task Force took a first look at the potential impacts of sea level rise in Olympia. It published the Preliminary Assessment of Sea Level Rise in Olympia, Washington: Technical and Policy Implications, a report that contributed to an understanding of potential local impacts, offered a range of possible responses and documented the value of taking a long-term perspective.

Since then, adaptative actions have included: • Planning to replace McAllister Springs with a wellfield farther upgradient from the

shoreline in order to avoid potential impacts to the City’s primary water supply. Water conservation, water efficiency and reclaimed water programs have reduced the impact of increasing water demand.

• Land use and transportation policies have promoted denser and, hopefully, less auto-dependent development.

• Stormwater management regulations have reduced flooding, new and planned stormwater and wastewater facilities provide capacity for higher flows, and aging infrastructure is being replaced.

Recent Refocusing on Climate Change In response to growing concerns about impacts to Olympia’s downtown, City staff began revisiting climate change and sea level rise issues in late 2006. Initial findings, reinforcing the significance of sea level rise to downtown Olympia, were reported to City Council on March 27, 2007. A work plan initiated by Public Works staff included preparing this status report, considering next steps for further emission reductions and risk assessments and increasing education efforts.

• Education. The City is engaging the community through public forums and other educational activities. A major event, Climate Change: Olympia’s Call to Action will be held on October 2, 2007. Featured speakers are Terry Tempest Williams, author, naturalist and environmental activist; and New York Times science reporter Andrew Revkin. This event will to be a community wake up call about the reality of climate change and an opportunity to engage the community in actions to reduce GHG emissions by conserving energy and using alternative transportation.

• Partnerships. The City is also forging partnerships with its Thurston County neighbors including Puget Sound Energy, the LOTT Alliance, Port of Olympia, and Intercity Transit. The City is drawing on resources from Ecology, the Climate


Impacts Group and others; and is represented on the statewide Coastal/Infrastructure Preparation/Adaptation Working Group to recommend strategies to meet Governor Gregoire’s Washington Climate Change Challenge.

WHAT NEXT STEPS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR OLYMPIA? It is imperative that the City both contribute to global efforts to reduce GHG emissions, and adapt to likely climate change impacts. Implementing effective policies, programs and projects will require concerted, ongoing efforts by City government along with other responsible agencies, businesses and citizens. This section describes the two preliminary recommendations of this report:

1. Expand the City’s mitigation efforts beyond reducing emissions from City operations to engage the broader community.

2. Begin a systematic assessment of Olympia’s vulnerability to climate change and sea level rise.

Mitigation Strategy City government shares responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the South Puget Sound region, as its contribution to stabilizing global GHG concentrations. In addition to continuing to reduce emissions from municipal operations, the City could initiate a community-wide mitigation strategy and encourage businesses, agencies and other organizations to participate. A range of City and community expertise and involvement would be needed.

As a starting point, the City could initiate work to quantify the community’s current level of emissions and then track annual emissions. Several other cities, including Seattle and Portland, have devised methods of calculating annual emissions that can serve as models for this process.

With current emissions as a benchmark, emissions reduction goals could be established. For example, the community could agree on a short-term goal of a 7 percent reduction of GHGs below 1990 levels by 2012 as recommended by the Mayors for Climate Protection Agreement. The City could also take steps towards meeting the longer-term goals outlined by Governor Gregoire’s Climate Challenge Executive Order 02-07:

• 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2035 • 50% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050

City government and other individual and institutional participants could then plan and implement individual and collective efforts to meet the targets within a set time.


Adaptation Strategy Adaptation planning could be initiated by assessing the vulnerability of the Olympia community to climate change impacts. This could be done both quantitatively and qualitatively, using methodologies developed for local communities by the Climate Impacts Group.

Given their current understanding of local natural and built landscapes, Olympia staff could initiate such assessments, prioritizing identified issues and recommending next steps to Council. Participation in the work effort could include City departments (Public Works; Community Planning and Development; Parks, Arts and Recreation) and numerous other local governmental and community entities.

Consideration of climate change adaptation could evolve and be refined over time with increases in information, expertise and broad governmental and community involvement.


Glossary Abrupt climate change. Change of the climate system that is faster than the adaptation time of ecosystems and/or social systems.

Albedo. Reflectivity of the earth’s surface. Snow and ice have a high albedo, being white or light colored, and therefore reflect sunlight back into space. Melting snow and ice reduces the overall surface reflectivity, allowing the ocean to absorb more heat.

Anthropogenic. Human-caused as opposed to natural. For example, many natural factors affect concentrations of carbon dioxide; anthropogenic influences include industrial and vehicle emissions and clearing forests.

Carbon dioxide equivalent. A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their potential to warm the globe.

Decadal. Occurring over a 10-year period, such as an oscillation in climate whose period is roughly 10 years.

Greenhouse effect. When solar energy enters the earth’s atmosphere, some is absorbed by the oceans and land surface, and some radiates back out into space.

Greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) trap heat in the atmosphere, preventing the planet from freezing.

Land carbon sink. Carbon on land is stored in various pools such as vegetation, detritus, soil, black carbon residue from fires and harvested products. These sinks represent 15-30 percent of annual global emissions of carbon from fossil fuels and industrial activities.

Positive and negative feedback. Occurs in any dynamic system. Positive feedback amplifies a change away from equilibrium, such as increasing temperature, while negative feedback reduces the effect.

Radiative forcing. Natural and anthropogenic (human) influences that combine to warm and cool the earth. Refers to how much influence a particular factor (like carbon dioxide) has in changing the amount of energy entering and leaving the earth’s atmosphere and the potential it has to change climate.

Solar irradiance. The energy output of the sun, which fluctuates on an 11-year cycle.

Thermohaline circulation. Global circulation of the oceans, sometimes called the ocean conveyor belt or meriodonal overturning circulation (MOC). Heat (thermo-) and salt (-haline) together determine the density of sea water. Wind-driven surface currents such as the Gulf Stream head toward the North Pole from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean, cooling and eventually sinking at high latitudes in the deep waters of the North Atlantic.


This dense water then flows into the other ocean basins, mostly upwelling in the North Pacific. Extensive vertical mixing takes place between the ocean basins, reducing differences between them and making the Earth's ocean a global system. On their journey, the water masses transport both energy (in the form of heat) and matter (solids, dissolved substances and gases) around the globe. Because of this, the state of the circulation has a large impact on the Earth’s climate.


References Adger, N., Aggarwal, P., Agrawala, S., Alcamo, J., Allali, A., Anisimov, O. et al. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland. Online at http://www.ipcc.ch/PM13apr07.pdf [accessed August 2007].

Bauman, Y., Doppelt, B., Mazze, S., & Wolf, E.C. (2006). Impacts of climate change on Washington’s economy: A preliminary assessment of risks and opportunities (No. 07-01-010). Olympia, WA: Department of Ecology and Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.

Canning, Douglas J (2001). Climate Variability, Climate Change, and Sea-level Rise in Puget Sound: Possibilities for the Future.

Casola, J.H. Kay, J.E., Snover, A.K., Norheim, R.A., & Whitely Binder, L.C. (2005). Climate impacts on Washington’s hydropower, water supply, forests, fish, and agriculture. A report prepared for King County (Washington) by the Climate Impacts Group (Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean). University of Washington, Seattle.

City of Olympia Department of Public Works. (1991). City of Olympia’s response to the challenge of global climate change: Background report to the Olympia City Council by the global warming task force. Olympia, WA: Policy and Program Development Division.

Climate Impacts Group (2007). Climate facts: a summary of published research on global PNW regional climate change, current impacts, and expected impacts. Contact CIG for a copy http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pubs/allpubs.shtml.

Craig, D. (1993). Preliminary assessment of sea level rise in Olympia, Washington: Technical and policy implications. Olympia, WA: Public Works Department, Policy and Program Development Division.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). The U.S. inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: Fast facts. (No. 430-F-07-004) Found at: www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/2007GHGFast Facts.pdf on August 15, 2007, Office of Atmospheric Programs

Forster, P.V., Rarnaswarny, P., Artexo, T., Berntsen, R., Fahey, D.W., Haywood, J., et al. (2007). Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


International Scientific Steering Committee. (2005). Avoiding dangerous climate change: International symposium on the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations. Report of the International Scientific Steering Committee. Found at www.stabilisation2005.com/Steering_Commitee_Report.pdf on August 15, 2007.

IPCC. (2007a). Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2007b). “Summary for policymakers,” Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. From the Working Group contributions to the Third Assessment Report. Online at http://www.ipc.ch/pub/un/syreg/spm.pdf [accessed August 2007].

Kay, J., Casola, J., Snover, A., & Climate Impacts Group. (2005). Global climate change primer. Prepared for King County’s October 27, 2005 Climate Change Conference. Found at www.cses.washington.edu/cig/outreach/workshops/kc2005.shtml .

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2007), http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/abrupt.html [accessed August 27, 2007].

National Wildlife Federation (NWF) (2007). Sea-level Rise and Coastal Habitats in the Pacific Northwest: An Analysis for Puget Sound, Southwestern Washington, and Northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Seattle. Report can be downloaded from http://www.nwf.org/sealevelrise/.

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), report based on a preliminary estimate using recently published BP (British Petroleum) energy data and cement production data. http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2 emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html [accessed August 16, 2007].

Overpeck, J., & Cole, J.E. (2006). Abrupt change in earth’s climate system. Annual Rev. Environ. Resource, 31, 1-31.

Snover, A.K., Mote, P.W., Whitely-Binder, L., Hamlet, A.F., & Mantua, N.J. (2005). Uncertain future: Climate change and its effects on Puget Sound (No. PSAT05-12). A report for the Puget Sound Action Team by the Climate Impacts Group. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action Team.

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Aley, R.B., Berntsen, T., Bindoff, N.L., et al. (2007). Technical summary. In: Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


Union of Concerned Scientists (2007), http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html [accessed August 16, 2007].

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). World per capita carbon dioxide emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels: 1980-2004. Official energy statistics from the U.S. government. Online at www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html [accessed August 15, 2007].

WA Department of Ecology. (2007). Issue up close: Facing the challenge of climate change (No. 07-01-023). Olympia, WA.

Whitely-Binder, Lara (2007a). Planning for climate change [PowerPoint presentation for Snohomish County, July 26, 2007]. University of Washington Climate Impacts Group. Online at http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/outreach/presentfiles/wccma816071wb.ppt [accessed August 2007].

Whitely-Binder (2007b). Personal communication, August 2007.

Whitely-Binder (2007c). Personal communication on impacts of climate change in the Pacific Northwest, September 4, 2007.

Yohe, G. & Neumann, J. (1997). Planning for sea level rise and shore protection under climate uncertainty. Climate Change, 37, 243-270.



Appendix A. Mapping Sea Level Rise in Olympia: Data sources, Assumptions and Next Steps

City of Olympia Water Resources staff used best available data to determine the areas at risk to flooding from sea level rise. Following is a discussion of the data used in this study, assumptions made and future work efforts regarding the data. The primary data source used was a LiDAR-based digital elevation model (DEM). DEMs are representations of elevation spread over a grid; in this case, a 6- by 6-foot grid was used.

LiDAR stands for Light Detection and Ranging. The Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC) conducted a flight of Thurston County in 2002 using a scanning laser rangefinder (a Bare Earth LiDAR DEM) to determine elevations. This is where the data was post-processed to remove structures and vegetation. The PSLC reports the data as adequate for determination of flood hazards with an appropriate horizontal scale of 1 inch = 1,000 feet or smaller and vertical accuracy within 1 foot. Full metadata can be found at the PSLC website, http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/.

To facilitate analysis, the floating point LiDAR data was rounded to the nearest foot. This rounded DEM was compared to nearly 200 City surveyed points in the downtown Olympia study area and found to be within ½-foot vertical accuracy on average, though official accuracy is +/- 1 foot. Observed sea levels can vary from predicted values within this vertical range due to variation in atmospheric pressure so we felt the data was sufficiently accurate to proceed.

Before mapping the area at risk, land elevations were related to tidal elevations. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) provides conversion values to related sea level (tidal datums) to land elevations (vertical datums). Two vertical datums were used to relate to the local tidal datum. The City of Olympia uses the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) and the PSLC uses the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) for its LiDAR data.

City of Olympia surveyed land elevations (NGVD29) are related to the tidal datum by adding 8.01 feet to a City land elevation to arrive at a tidal elevation. For example, a zero foot Olympia land elevation is equal to an 8.01-foot tidal elevation.

In Olympia’s downtown, it is necessary to subtract approximately 4 feet from a NAVD88 value to equal a NGVD29 value. So relating the LiDAR values to tidal values is a two-step process. For example, a LiDAR value of 14 feet minus 4 feet equals an


Olympia land value of 10 feet plus 8 feet, which equals a tidal datum value of 18 feet. Olympia’s highest observed tidal elevation was 18 feet, observed in December of 1977.

Olympia is known to be geologically subsiding at about 1 to 2 mm/yr (Canning 2001). NOAA is currently using new methods to measure this rate and predictions will be revised as more accurate information is available. Areas of Olympia’s downtown are on fill material and may also be subsiding due to compaction. Subsidence rates due to compaction are unknown and should be determined.

Olympia has no official NOAA tidal station, though one did exist here in the late 1970s. The nearest station is in Tacoma and tidal predictions for Olympia are calculated based on this station. More accurate monitoring of observed tide heights could be possible if the station in Olympia were reestablished. As a minimum, a survey-tied staff gauge should be installed.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood elevations for Olympia were established in 1981 as part of a FEMA flood insurance study. The current FEMA 100-year flood elevation for Olympia’s downtown adjacent to Puget Sound is 11 feet (NGVD29). FEMA is scheduled to update the flood maps for all of Thurston County in 2007-08. These updated maps should be consulted in future determinations of areas at risk to flooding.

Olympia is currently seeking a LiDAR data set on a 0.5-meter (1.64 feet) grid with a vertical accuracy of less than 15 centimeters (0.49 feet). The 4-foot conversion value used in this study to relate NGVD29 to NAVD88 will be refined with the new LiDAR, and floating-point values will be retained. This resolution will allow improved accuracy in defining areas at risk. It will also allow Olympia to consider the low areas around street drains where water is likely to be seen first as sea levels rise.

There is high confidence that sea level will continue to rise, but much uncertainty about the amount and how levels will vary based on location. Also, current projections do not include contributions by ice sheet melting that may be significant (IPCC 2007). Olympia Water Resources has structured its mapping capabilities to handle a wide range of predictions. This will help the City respond as confidence is gained in predictions of the amount of sea level rise expected for Olympia.

References:

Canning, Douglas J (2001). Climate Variability, Climate Change, and Sea-level Rise in Puget Sound: Possibilities for the Future.

IPCC (2007a). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press. “Summary for Policymakers” online at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf [accessed August 28, 2007].


Appendix B. City of Olympia 2007 Emissions Report

Documents

City of Olympia's Response to the Challenge of Climate Change