ArcGIS REST Services Directory Login | Get Token
Home > services > Shared > EnviroFeaturesData (FeatureServer) > Climate Impact Vulnerability Assessment - Airport Help | API Reference
JSON

Layer: Climate Impact Vulnerability Assessment - Airport (ID: 0)

View In:   WSDOT ArcGIS Online map viewer

Name: Climate Impact Vulnerability Assessment - Airport

Display Field: NAME

Type: Feature Layer

Geometry Type: esriGeometryPoint

Description: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) developed this data set in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to test a conceptual climate risk assessment model developed for transportation infrastructure. WSDOT applied the model using scenario planning in a series of statewide workshops, using local experts, to create qualitative assessment of climate vulnerability on its assets in each region and mode across Washington. For the purposes of this statewide effort, managed assets were defined as sections of highway or railroad, and whole facilities (Ferry Terminal or Airport). Fourteen workshops engaged experts across all WSDOT regions, state ferries, rail, and aviation. The outcome of each workshop was a subjective evaluation of asset vulnerability agreed upon by participants. This feature class contains the results for airports. This study assumed 100% probability of climate change impacts previously identified in the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group's 2009 assessment. Types of impacts discussed in the workshops with local experts included: temperature changes, increase in extreme weather events, precipitation changes, sea level rise, fire risk, and high winds. The scientific community's understanding of climate impacts continues to evolve as the models and collective understanding of feedback systems improve. We do not have perfect information about exactly how, when, where, and to what magnitude climate changes will unfold in Washington State. After reviewing the extreme weather events and other impacts projected for their area, workshop participants defined sections of highway, rail, or specific facilities with consideration of the local geology, natural and constructed drainage and hydrology, elevation, slope, land use and operational maintenance issues. Once defined, each corridor or facility was then ranked for two variables: asset criticality and potential impact. Asset criticality (which was defined by the workshop participants) should not be confused with other measures such as highway functional class. 1) How critical is that site or corridor to overall transportation operations and public safety? The following scale guided the qualitative assessment of criticality: a. 1-3 = Low - facility/corridor with low daily traffic, available alternate routes, not part of the National Highway System b. 4-6 = Medium - facility/corridor has low to medium daily traffic, serves as an alternate route of other state corridors or facilities c. 7-10 = High - facility/corridor is an Interstate or other major highway, is considered a lifeline route or is the sole access to a population center or critical facility. 2) How might potential climate changes impact site or corridor operations? The following scale guided the assessment of climate impacts: a. 1-3 = Low - Reduced Capacity: facility/corridor partially open to use and full operations can be restored within 10 days b. 4-6 = Medium - Temporary Operational Failure: Facility/corridor closed for hours or days. Reopening or repair could be completed within 60 days. c. 7-10 = High - Complete Failure: facility/corridor likely to require major repair or rebuild with closures lasting more than 60 days These qualitative rankings for impacts and asset criticality and some general descriptions were captured in spreadsheets that were later used to create GIS layers. This data is intended for use in statewide or regional planning and to assist in adapting maintenance and engineering policies and practices to protect our transportation infrastructure over the coming decades. The rankings here were based on our knowledge and understanding at the time of the study, and should only be taken as a best professional estimate for considering potential conditions that might put people or infrastructure at risk. Current information about projected climate changes and asset use and condition should always be taken into account, especially as time progresses.

Copyright Text: WSDOT Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment Team: Mark Maurer, Carol Lee Roalkvam, Sandra L. Salisbury, Elizabeth Goss, Mark Gabel, Elizabeth Lanzer, Tanya Johnson, Casey Kramer, Jim Park, Rebecca Nichols.

Default Visibility: true

MaxRecordCount: 1000

Supported Query Formats: JSON, geoJSON, PBF

Min Scale: 0

Max Scale: 0

Supports Advanced Queries: true

Supports Statistics: true

Can Scale Symbols: false

Use Standardized Queries: true

Supports ValidateSQL: true

Supports Calculate: true

Supports Datum Transformation: true

Extent:
Drawing Info: Advanced Query Capabilities:
HasZ: false

HasM: false

Has Attachments: false

HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText

Type ID Field:

Fields: Templates:
Capabilities: Query

Sync Can Return Changes: false

Is Data Versioned: false

Supports Rollback On Failure: true

Supports ApplyEdits With Global Ids: false

Supports Query With Historic Moment: false

Supports Coordinates Quantization: true

Supported Operations:   Query   Query Analytic   Calculate   Validate SQL   Generate Renderer   Return Updates   Iteminfo   Thumbnail   Metadata